Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01306/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01306-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 710
Nature of Suit: Fair Labor Standards Act
Cause of Action: 15:2(a) Fair Labor Standards Act

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ELAINE CHAO, SECRETARY OF LABOR )

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF )

LABOR, ) 2:05-cv-1306-GEB-KJM

)

Plaintiff, )

) STATUS (PRETRIAL

v. ) SCHEDULING) ORDER

) 

JASMINE HALL CARE HOMES, INC., a )

corporation, HALL CARE HOMES, INC.,)

a corporation, GEORGE K. HALL, an )

individual, and ESTELA HALL, an )

individual, )

)

Defendants. )

)

The status (pretrial scheduling) conference scheduled in

this case for December 12, 2005, is vacated since the Joint Status

Report (“JSR”) submitted by the parties indicates that the following

Order should issue.

MOTION TO SET ASIDE DEFAULT AND DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER

On November 23, 2005, Defendants filed a motion to set aside

the default entered against Defendants on November 18, 2005. In the

JSR, Plaintiff states that she does not oppose the motion. Therefore,

the default entered against Defendants on November 18, 2005, is set

Case 2:05-cv-01306-GEB-KJN Document 23 Filed 12/06/05 Page 1 of 7
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 If the Answer referenced in the JSR on page 2 is different

from the Answer attached to Defendants’ November 23 Motion, Defendants

have leave to file the Answer referenced on page 2 of the JSR. 

2 Pursuant to Rule 16, a party has an obligation to assist the

Court in “fashioning workable programmatic procedures” concerning

anticipated amendments. In re San Juan Dupont Plaza Hotel Fire Litig.,

111 F.3d 220, 229 (1st Cir. 1997). 

Parties anticipating possible amendments . . . have

an ‘unflagging obligation’ to alert the Rule 16

scheduling judge of the . . . timing of such

anticipated amendments in their status reports so

that the judge can consider whether such amendments

may properly be sought solely under the Rule 15(a)

standard, and whether structuring discovery

pertinent to the parties’ decision whether to amend

is feasible. See Veranda Beach [Club Ltd.

Partnership v. Western Sur. Co.], 936 F.2d [1364,]

1371 [(1st Cir. 1991)]; 3 Moore’s Federal Practice

at § 16.36[3][c] ("Addressing these matters

assertively early in the pretrial period . . . [is]

essential to coherent case development planning,

and can avoid the delays and the wasteful

repetition of discovery events that are often

(continued...)

2

aside. Defendants have five days from the date on which this Status

(Pretrial Scheduling) Order is filed to file and serve the Answer

attached to their November 23, 2005, Motion to Set Aside Default.1

SERVICE OF PROCESS

No further service is permitted, except with leave of Court,

good cause having been shown.

JOINDER OF ADDITIONAL PARTIES/AMENDMENT

Plaintiff states in the JSR that “Plaintiff may later seek

to amend her Complaint to encompass the employees of one or more

additional residential care facilities that Plaintiff understands to

have been recently acquired by Defendant George Hall.” (JSR at 2.) 

Plaintiff fails to apprize the Court when her motion seeking leave to

amend would be filed.2 Therefore, Plaintiff has 90 days from the date

Case 2:05-cv-01306-GEB-KJN Document 23 Filed 12/06/05 Page 2 of 7
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(...continued)

occasioned by amendments made later in the pretrial

period.").

Jackson v. Laureate, Inc., 186 F.R.D. 605, 608 (E.D. Cal. 1999).

3 The parties are advised that the Magistrate Judges in the

Eastern District are responsible for resolving discovery disputes. See

Local Rule 72-302(c)(1). Accordingly, counsel shall direct all

discovery-related matters to the Magistrate Judge assigned to this case.

A party conducting discovery near the discovery "completion" date runs

the risk of losing the opportunity to have a jurist resolve discovery

motions pursuant to the Local Rules.

3

this Status Order is filed to seek leave to file the amended complaint

referenced above. The motion must be noticed for hearing on the

undersigned judge’s earliest available regular law and motion

calendar, and will be decided under the standard prescribed in Federal

Rule of Civil Procedure 15. No further amendments to pleadings is

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

No joinder of parties is permitted except with leave of Court, good

cause having been shown.

DISCOVERY

(a) All discovery shall be completed by December 20, 2006.

In this context, "completed" means that all discovery shall have been

conducted so that all depositions have been taken and any disputes

relative to discovery shall have been resolved by appropriate orders,

if necessary, and, where discovery has been ordered, the order has

been complied with or, alternatively, the time allowed for such

compliance shall have expired.3

(b) Each party shall comply with the initial expert witness

disclosure and report requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

26(a)(2) on or before July 3, 2006, and with the rebuttal expert

disclosures authorized under the Rule on or before August 21, 2006. 

Case 2:05-cv-01306-GEB-KJN Document 23 Filed 12/06/05 Page 3 of 7
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 This time deadline does not apply to motions for continuances,

temporary restraining orders, emergency applications, or motions under

Rule 16(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

4

MOTION HEARING SCHEDULE

The last hearing date for motions shall be February 20,

2007, at 9:00 a.m.4

Motions shall be filed in accordance with Local Rule 78-

230(b). Opposition papers shall be filed in accordance with Local

Rule 78-230(c). Failure to comply with this local rule may be deemed

consent to the motion and the Court may dispose of the motion

summarily. Brydges v. Lewis, 18 F.3d 651, 652-53 (9th Cir. 1994). 

Further, failure to timely oppose a summary judgment motion may result

in the granting of that motion if the movant shifts the burden to the

nonmovant to demonstrate a genuine issue of material fact remains for

trial. Cf. Marshall v. Gates, 44 F.3d 722 (9th Cir. 1995). 

Absent highly unusual circumstances, reconsideration of a

motion is appropriate only where:

(1) The Court is presented with newly discovered evidence

that could not reasonably have been discovered prior to the filing of

the party's motion or opposition papers;

(2) The Court committed clear error or the initial decision

was manifestly unjust; or

(3) There is an intervening change in controlling law.

A motion for reconsideration based on newly discovered evidence shall

set forth, in detail, the reason why said evidence could not

reasonably have been discovered prior to the filing of the party’s

motion or opposition papers. Motions for reconsideration shall comply

with Local Rule 78-230(k) in all other respects.

Case 2:05-cv-01306-GEB-KJN Document 23 Filed 12/06/05 Page 4 of 7
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 The failure of one or more of the parties to participate in

the preparation of any joint document required to be filed in this case

does not excuse the other parties from their obligation to timely file

the document in accordance with this Order. In the event a party fails

to participate as ordered, the party or parties timely submitting the

document shall include a declaration explaining why they were unable to

obtain the cooperation of the other party. 

5

The parties are cautioned that an untimely motion

characterized as a motion in limine may be summarily denied. A motion

in limine addresses the admissibility of evidence.

 FINAL PRETRIAL CONFERENCE

The final pretrial conference is set for April 23, 2007, at

1:30 p.m. The parties are cautioned that the lead attorney who WILL

TRY THE CASE for each party shall attend the final pretrial

conference. In addition, all persons representing themselves and

appearing in propria persona must attend the pretrial conference.

The parties are warned that non-trialworthy issues could be

eliminated sua sponte “[i]f the pretrial conference discloses that no

material facts are in dispute and that the undisputed facts entitle

one of the parties to judgment as a matter of law.” Portsmouth Square

v. Shareholders Protective Comm., 770 F.2d 866, 869 (9th Cir. 1985). 

The parties shall file a JOINT pretrial statement with the

Court not later than seven (7) days prior to the final pretrial

conference.5 The joint pretrial statement shall specify the issues

for trial. The Court uses the parties' joint pretrial statement to

prepare its final pretrial order and could issue the final pretrial

order without holding the scheduled final pretrial conference. See

Mizwicki v. Helwig, 196 F.3d 828, 833 (7th Cir. 1999) (“There is no

requirement that the court hold a pretrial conference.”). The final

pretrial order supersedes the pleadings and controls the facts and

Case 2:05-cv-01306-GEB-KJN Document 23 Filed 12/06/05 Page 5 of 7
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

issues which may be presented at trial. Issues asserted in pleadings

which are not preserved for trial in the final pretrial order cannot

be raised at trial. Hotel Emp., et al. Health Tr. v. Elks Lodge 1450,

827 F.2d 1324, 1329 (9th Cir. 1987) (“Issues not preserved in the

pretrial order are eliminated from the action.”); Valley Ranch Dev.

Co. v. F.D.I.C., 960 F.2d 550, 554 (5th Cir. 1992) (indicating that an

issue omitted from the pretrial order is waived, even if it appeared

in the pleading); cf. Raney v. District of Columbia, 892 F. Supp. 283

(D.D.C. 1995) (refusing to modify the pretrial order to allow

assertion of a previously-pled statute of limitations defense);

Olympia Co. v. Celotex Corp., 597 F. Supp. 285, 289 (E.D. La. 1984)

(indicating that “[a]ny factual contention, legal contention, any

claim for relief or defense in whole or in part, or affirmative matter

not set forth in [the pretrial statement] shall be deemed . . .

withdrawn, notwithstanding the contentions of any pleadings or other

papers previously filed [in the action]”). 

If possible, at the time of filing the joint pretrial

statement counsel shall also email it in a format compatible with

WordPerfect to: geborders@caed.uscourts.gov.

SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE

No settlement conference is currently scheduled. The

parties shall address in their joint pretrial statement whether they

wish to have a judge-assisted settlement conference. If counsel wish

the Magistrate Judge to act as settlement judge, prior to scheduling

the settlement conference, a written stipulation must be filed that

waives disqualification of the judge on that basis. See L. R. 16-

270(b). If the parties wish to participate in Court-assisted

Case 2:05-cv-01306-GEB-KJN Document 23 Filed 12/06/05 Page 6 of 7
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

7

settlement prior to the final pretrial conference, they should contact

the Deputy Clerk.

TRIAL SETTING

Trial is set for July 24, 2007, commencing at 9:00 a.m. 

MISCELLANEOUS

The parties are reminded that pursuant to Federal Rule of

Civil Procedure 16(b), the Status (pretrial scheduling) Order shall

not be modified except by leave of Court upon a showing of good cause. 

Counsel are cautioned that a mere stipulation by itself to change

dates does not constitute good cause. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: December 6, 2005

/s/ Garland E. Burrell, Jr.

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge 

Case 2:05-cv-01306-GEB-KJN Document 23 Filed 12/06/05 Page 7 of 7