Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_17-cv-01968/USCOURTS-caed-2_17-cv-01968-12/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 350
Nature of Suit: Motor Vehicle Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Auto Negligence

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROGER DRIVER,

Plaintiff,

v.

PAPE TRUCKS, INC. an Oregon 

Corporation;

Defendant.

PAPE TRUCKS, INC.

Third-Party Plaintiff,

v.

JOMAR INVESTMENTS, INC. dba NEW 

LIFE TRANSPORT PARTS CENTER, and 

ROES 1-10, Inclusive,

Third-Party Defendants.

ACCIDENT FUND INSURANCE 

COMPANY OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-in-Intervention,

v.

PAPE TRUCKS, INC.,

Defendant.

Case No. 2:17-cv-01968-KJN

ORDER

Case 2:17-cv-01968-CSK Document 58 Filed 06/01/20 Page 1 of 2
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

The court is in receipt of intervenor Accident Fund Insurance Company of America’s 

complaint and consent to magistrate judge jurisdiction. (ECF Nos. 55, 56.) Given the current

stage of litigation, the parties are instructed to review the dates and deadlines contained in the 

current scheduling order. (ECF No. 49.) The parties are instructed to discuss amongst themselves 

whether these dates are still workable; if the dates are no longer feasible the parties are advised to 

file a joint proposal modifying the scheduling order. If the parties cannot reach a consensus they 

are instructed to file their own proposals, and proposed orders, for the court’s consideration. If the 

court does not receive any modification requests from the parties within twenty-one (21) days of 

this order, the court will presume the current scheduling order is agreeable to the parties. 

IT IS SO ORDERED

Dated: June 1, 2020

/1968.driver

Case 2:17-cv-01968-CSK Document 58 Filed 06/01/20 Page 2 of 2