Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-01394/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-01394-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1332pi Diversity-Personal Injury

---

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 

3:15-cv-01394-GPC-BGS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

DANIELLE TRUJILLO, as Guardian 

Ad Litem for KADEN PORTER, a 

minor, on behalf of himself and others 

similarly situated; LACEY 

MORALES, as Guardian Ad Litem for 

ISABEL MORALES., a minor, on 

behalf of herself and others similarly 

situated; BEVERLY HOY, on behalf 

of herself and all others similarly 

situated; 

 Plaintiffs, 

v. 

AMETEK, INC., a Delaware 

corporation; SENIOR OPERATIONS, 

LLC, a limited liability company; and 

DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, 

 Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CASE NO.: 3:15-cv-01394-GPC-BGS 

ORDER: 

(1)DENYING REQUEST FOR 

STATUS CONFERENCE 

 [Dkt. No. 81]

(2)GRANTING REQUEST FOR 

BRIEFING SCHEDULE FOR 

OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF’S 

RESPONSE TO COURT’S LONE 

PINE ORDER 

 [Dkt. No. 77] 

fff

Case 3:15-cv-01394-GPC-AGS Document 83 Filed 12/02/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
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-

3:15-cv-01394-GPC-BGS

 Before the Court is the parties’ Joint Motion Regarding Defendants’ Request for 

a Status Conference or Briefing Schedule Regarding a Challenge to Plaintiff’s Response 

to the Lone Pine Case Management Order No. 1 (“Joint Motion”). Dkt. No. 81. In the 

Joint Motion, Defendants ask the Court for (1) “a status conference in order to address 

the procedure for raising objections to the sufficiency of Plaintiff’s submissions in 

response to the Lone Pine CMO” or (2) in the alternative, “a briefing and hearing 

schedule for Defendants’ motion challenging the sufficiency of said submission.” Id. at 

2. Plaintiff opposes Defendants’ request, arguing that they lack authority for their 

request to file a response and that additional briefing is “unprecedented and unfair to 

Plaintiffs at this early stage of the litigation.” Dkt. No. 81 at 7. 

 The Court finds that setting a briefing schedule for Defendants’ objections to 

Plaintiff’s Lone Pine submission is proper. In Acuna v. Brown & Root Inc., the Fifth 

Circuit upheld a magistrate judge’s decision to dismiss plaintiffs’ claims for failure to 

comply with a Lone Pine order. 200 F.3d 335, 340-41 (5th Cir. 2000). And before the 

magistrate judge had dismissed the plaintiff’s claims, the court had issued an order 

directing the defendant to file a motion to dismiss for failure to comply with the Court’s 

Lone Pine order. Order at 1-2, 1998 WL 35283825, No. 96-cv-0543 (W.D. Tex. Feb. 2, 

1998), ECF No. 67 at 1 (“the deadline for filing a motion to dismiss for failure to 

comply with the scheduling order is . . . .”). 

 Accordingly, the Court DENIES Defendants’ request for a status conference and 

GRANTS Defendants’ request to set a briefing schedule for objections to Plaintiff’s 

Lone Pine submission. Defendants may file objections challenging Plaintiff’s prima 

facie evidence as insufficient pursuant to the Court’s Case Management Order No.1, 

Dkt. No. 71 at 7. Such objections, however, should only consist of argument 

concerning the deficiencies in Plaintiff’s submission and not evidence. In other words, 

the Court declines Defendants’ invitation, see Dkt. No. 81 at 6, to convert Plaintiff’s 

Lone Pine response and Defendants’ subsequent objections into a motion for summary 

judgment. The Court’s inquiry will focus on the adequacy of Plaintiff’s showing only. 

Case 3:15-cv-01394-GPC-AGS Document 83 Filed 12/02/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
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-

3:15-cv-01394-GPC-BGS

CONCLUSION 

The Court hereby enters the following briefing schedule: Defendants shall file 

any objections to Plaintiff’s Lone Pine submission (Dkt. No. 77) by January 2, 2016. 

Plaintiff shall file any reply by January 23, 2016. A response to Plaintiff’s reply may 

be filed on or before January 30, 2016. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: December 2, 2016 

Case 3:15-cv-01394-GPC-AGS Document 83 Filed 12/02/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3