Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-02240/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-02240-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 220
Nature of Suit: Foreclosure
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-(Citizenship)

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DENNLY R. BECKER

Plaintiff,

v.

BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON AS 

TRUSTEE FOR THE BELLAVISTA 

MORTGAGE TRUST 2004-2 & 

NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE LLC,

Defendants.

No. 2:15-cv-2240-MCE-KJN PS 

PRETRIAL SCHEDULING ORDER

READ THIS ORDER CAREFULLY. IT CONTAINS IMPORTANT DATES THAT 

THE COURT WILL STRICTLY ENFORCE AND WITH WHICH ALL COUNSEL AND 

PARTIES, INCLUDING PRO SE PARTIES, MUST COMPLY. FAILURE TO COMPLY 

WITH THE TERMS OF THIS ORDER MAY RESULT IN THE IMPOSITION OF 

MONETARY AND ALL OTHER APPROPRIATE SANCTIONS, INCLUDING DISMISSAL 

OR AN ORDER OF JUDGMENT.

On October 13, 2016, the court conducted a status (pretrial scheduling) conference in this 

matter. Plaintiff Dennly Becker appeared, representing himself, and attorney Megan Kelly

appeared telephonically on behalf of defendants Bank of New York Mellon as Trustee for the 

Case 2:15-cv-02240-MCE-KJN Document 41 Filed 10/14/16 Page 1 of 6
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

Bellavista Mortgage Trust 2004-2 and Nationstar Mortgage LLC. After considering the parties’

joint status report (ECF No. 35) and the parties’ representations at the status conference, the court 

issues the following pretrial scheduling order. 

NATURE OF THE CASE

The operative second amended complaint asserts a single claim for violation of California 

Civil Code section 2943, alleging that defendants willfully failed to respond to plaintiff’s request 

for a payoff demand statement in accordance with that statute. 

Defendants deny any liability and assert various affirmative defenses. 

SERVICE OF PROCESS

Defendants answered plaintiff’s second amended complaint. Thus, no further service is 

permitted except with leave of court, good cause having been shown.

JOINDER OF PARTIES/AMENDMENT OF PLEADINGS

No further joinder of parties or amendments to pleadings will be permitted except with 

leave of court, good cause having been shown.

JURISDICTION/VENUE

Jurisdiction and venue are undisputed, and are hereby found to be proper.

INITIAL DISCLOSURES

The parties shall make initial disclosures pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

26(a)(1) no later than November 3, 2016.

LAW AND MOTION

All law and motion, except as to discovery-related matters, shall be completed by 

September 28, 2017. The word “completed” in this context means that all law and motion 

matters must be heard by the above date. Counsel and/or parties proceeding without counsel1are 

cautioned to refer to the Local Rules regarding the requirements for noticing such motions on the 

court’s regularly scheduled law and motion calendar, including, but not limited to, Local Rule 

230. Judge Newman generally hears civil motions on Thursdays at 10:00 a.m. This paragraph 

 

1 Any reference to “counsel” in this order includes parties appearing without counsel, otherwise 

referred to as appearing in propria persona or pro se.

Case 2:15-cv-02240-MCE-KJN Document 41 Filed 10/14/16 Page 2 of 6
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

does not preclude motions for continuances, temporary restraining orders, or other emergency 

applications, for which the court may set a special briefing schedule, if appropriate. 

The parties should keep in mind that the purpose of law and motion is to narrow and 

refine the legal issues raised by the case and to dispose of by pretrial motion those issues that are 

susceptible to resolution without trial. To accomplish that purpose, the parties need to identify 

and fully research the issues presented by the case, and then examine those issues in light of the 

evidence obtained through discovery. If it appears to counsel after examining the legal issues and 

facts that an issue can be resolved by pretrial motion, counsel are to file the appropriate motion 

consistent with the law and motion cutoff set forth above.

ALL PURELY LEGAL ISSUES ARE TO BE RESOLVED BY TIMELY PRETRIAL 

MOTION. Counsel are reminded that motions in limine are procedural devices designed to 

address the admissibility of evidence. COUNSEL ARE CAUTIONED THAT THE COURT 

WILL LOOK WITH DISFAVOR UPON SUBSTANTIVE MOTIONS PRESENTED UNDER 

THE GUISE OF MOTIONS IN LIMINE AT THE TIME OF TRIAL.

DISCOVERY

All discovery shall be completed by August 3, 2017. The word “completed” means that 

all discovery shall have been conducted so that all depositions have been taken and any disputes 

related to discovery shall have been resolved by appropriate order if necessary and, where 

discovery has been ordered, the order has been complied with. Discovery motions must be 

noticed on the undersigned’s law and motion calendar in accordance with the Local Rules and 

must be heard not later than July 20, 2017. Judge Newman generally hears civil motions on 

Thursdays at 10:00 a.m.

The parties are reminded that discovery-related motions must conform to the requirements 

of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and this court’s Local Rules, including Local Rule 251. 

Additionally, the parties are required to meet and confer in good faith in an attempt to resolve 

their discovery disputes informally and without court intervention prior to filing a discovery 

motion. Such meet and confer shall take place in person, or at a minimum, via a telephonic 

conference. The mere exchange of letters or e-mails alone is not sufficient. As part of their joint 

Case 2:15-cv-02240-MCE-KJN Document 41 Filed 10/14/16 Page 3 of 6
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

4

statement related to a discovery motion submitted pursuant to Local Rule 251, the parties shall 

also specifically outline: (a) what meet-and-confer efforts were undertaken; (b) when and where 

such discussions took place; (c) who was present; and (d) how the parties’ disputes were 

narrowed as a result of such discussions. Failure to comply with these requirements may result in 

summary denial of a discovery motion. 

 Additionally, the court strongly encourages the use of informal telephonic discovery 

conferences with the court in lieu of formal discovery motion practice. The procedures and 

conditions for requesting and conducting such an informal telephonic discovery conference are 

outlined in Judge Newman’s “Order re Informal Telephonic Conferences re Discovery Disputes,” 

posted on the court’s website at http://www.caed.uscourts.gov/caednew/index.cfm/judges/alljudges/5046/. Additionally, subject to the court’s availability, the court will also rule on disputes 

encountered at oral depositions, so as to avoid such depositions from breaking down. In the 

course of the deposition, the parties may contact Judge Newman’s courtroom deputy clerk at 

(916) 930-4187 to inquire regarding Judge Newman’s availability. However, the parties are 

cautioned that these informal procedures are not to be abused, and the court may impose 

appropriate sanctions on an offending party or parties, even in the course of informal discovery 

conferences. 

EXPERT DISCLOSURES

The parties shall disclose any expert witnesses in accordance with the specifications of 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2) no later than May 4, 2017. Any rebuttal expert 

disclosures shall be made in accordance with the specifications of Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 26(a)(2) no later than June 1, 2017. Expert disclosures shall be filed with the court 

and served upon all other parties. 

An expert witness not timely disclosed will not be permitted to testify unless the party 

offering the witness demonstrates that: (a) the necessity of the witness could not have been 

reasonably anticipated at the time that the expert disclosures were due; (b) the court and opposing 

counsel were promptly notified upon discovery of the witness; and (c) the witness was promptly 

proffered for deposition. Failure to provide the information required by Federal Rule of Civil 

Case 2:15-cv-02240-MCE-KJN Document 41 Filed 10/14/16 Page 4 of 6
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

5

Procedure 26(a)(2) along with the expert disclosures may lead to preclusion of the expert’s 

testimony or other appropriate sanctions.

FINAL PRETRIAL CONFERENCE/TRIAL SETTING

The final pretrial conference and trial will take place before the assigned district judge, the 

Hon. Morrison C. England. The court declines to set final pretrial conference and trial dates at 

this juncture. Instead, those dates will be scheduled by Judge England upon the filing of the 

parties’ Joint Notice of Trial Readiness. 

The parties are ordered to file a Joint Notice of Trial Readiness not later than thirty (30) 

days after receiving the court’s ruling(s) on the last filed dispositive motion(s). If the parties do 

not intend to file dispositive motions, the parties are ordered to file a Joint Notice of Trial 

Readiness not later than thirty (30) days after the close of discovery and the notice must include 

statements of intent to forgo the filing of dispositive motions.

The parties are to set forth in their Notice of Trial Readiness the appropriateness of special 

procedures, whether this case is related to any other case(s) on file in the Eastern District of 

California, the prospect for settlement, the estimated trial length, any request for a jury, and the 

parties’ availability for trial. After review of the parties’ Joint Notice of Trial Readiness, Judge 

England will issue an order that sets forth dates for a final pretrial conference and trial. 

SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE

As discussed with the parties at the status conference, the parties shall promptly meet and 

confer regarding whether a settlement conference before another magistrate judge would be 

beneficial at this juncture. If the parties so conclude, they shall file an appropriate stipulation and 

proposed order requesting the scheduling of a settlement conference. 

MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

The parties are reminded that pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)(4), this 

order shall not be modified except by leave of court upon a showing of “good cause.” See

Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604 (9th Cir. 1992). Mere agreement by the 

parties pursuant to a stipulation does not constitute good cause. Nor does the unavailability of 

witnesses or counsel, except in extraordinary circumstances, constitute good cause. 

Case 2:15-cv-02240-MCE-KJN Document 41 Filed 10/14/16 Page 5 of 6
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

6

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 14, 2016

Case 2:15-cv-02240-MCE-KJN Document 41 Filed 10/14/16 Page 6 of 6