Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01624/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01624-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Rolando Cifuentes
Counter Defendant
Charlie Marlow
Counter Claimant
Christine Marlow
Counter Claimant

Document Text:

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROLANDO CIFUENTES,

Plaintiff,

v.

CHARLIE MARLOW and CHRISTINE

MARLOW, dba Marlow Bee Farm,

Defendants.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

1:07-cv-1624 OWW GSA

SCHEDULING CONFERENCE ORDER 

Discovery Cut-Off: 9/15/08

Non-Dispositive Motion

Filing Deadline: 11/15/08

Dispositive Motion Filing

Deadline: 12/1/08

Settlement Conference Date:

11/4/08 10:00 Ctrm. 10

Pre-Trial Conference

Date: 2/9/09 11:00 Ctrm. 3

Trial Date: 3/24/09 9:00

Ctrm. 3 (JT-4 days)

I. Date of Scheduling Conference.

February 13, 2008.

II. Appearances Of Counsel.

Oswald & Mitchell by Jack Oswald, Esq., appeared on behalf

of Plaintiff.

Steven A. Geringer, Esq., appeared on behalf of Defendants. 

///

///

Case 1:07-cv-01624-OWW -GSA Document 14 Filed 02/15/08 Page 1 of 9
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

III. Summary of Pleadings. 

Plaintiff’s Statement

1. Plaintiff seeks payment of $85,600.00 which Defendants

agreed to pay in exchange for the provision of bees by Plaintiff

to Defendants. Plaintiff delivered the bees as agreed,

Defendants paid one-third of what was owed, and have since

refused to pay the rest.

Defendants’ Statement

2. Plaintiff and Defendants entered into an oral agreement

wherein Plaintiff was to supply 1,192 colonies of bees for the

purpose of pollination. Defendants contend the vast majority of

colonies of bees supplied by Plaintiff were useless and

Defendants had to replace the useless colonies with replacement

colonies from another supplier. 

IV. Orders Re Amendments To Pleadings.

1. The parties currently do not contemplate amending the

pleadings. 

V. Factual Summary.

A. Admitted Facts Which Are Deemed Proven Without Further

Proceedings. 

1. Plaintiff and Defendants entered into an oral

contract for Plaintiff to supply 1,192 colonies of bees to

Defendants at Chowchilla, California, for pollination of

agricultural farms and orchards near Chowchilla, California, at a

price of $100.00 per colony, for a total cost of $119,200.00. 

2. Plaintiff delivered bees to Defendants.

3. Defendants paid $33,600.00, one-third of the total

amount due on or about March 19, 2007. 

Case 1:07-cv-01624-OWW -GSA Document 14 Filed 02/15/08 Page 2 of 9
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

4. Plaintiff is a citizen of the State of Oregon.

5. Defendants are citizens and residents of the

Eastern District of California. 

B. Contested Facts.

1. The parties do not agree whether the bees were

productive and effective for pollination.

2. Whether the bees performed as contracted.

3. Whether there was anything wrong with the bees.

4. Whether Defendants ever notified Plaintiff there

was anything wrong with the bees.

5. Whether Defendants told Plaintiff they were not

paying Plaintiff because Defendants’ customers were not paying

them. 

6. Whether Defendants ever had to secure replacement

bees to fulfill the terms of the agreement.

7. Whether Defendants suffered any cost to replace

ineffective bee colonies. 

8. Whether Defendants have any right to recover under

a counter-claim. 

VI. Legal Issues.

A. Uncontested.

1. Jurisdiction exists under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. 

2. Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391.

3. The parties agree that the substantive law of the

State of California provides the rule of decision in this

diversity action. 

B. Contested. 

1. Whether or not the oral contract was breached. 

Case 1:07-cv-01624-OWW -GSA Document 14 Filed 02/15/08 Page 3 of 9
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

2. Whether or not performance was rendered in full.

3. Whether or not Plaintiff was damaged and to what

extent.

4. Whether or not Defendant was damaged and to what

extent. 

5. Whether or not any breach of contract caused harm

to any of the parties in this case. 

VII. Consent to Magistrate Judge Jurisdiction.

1. The parties have not consented to transfer the 

case to the Magistrate Judge for all purposes, including trial.

VIII. Corporate Identification Statement.

1. Any nongovernmental corporate party to any action in

this court shall file a statement identifying all its parent

corporations and listing any entity that owns 10% or more of the

party's equity securities. A party shall file the statement with

its initial pleading filed in this court and shall supplement the

statement within a reasonable time of any change in the

information. 

IX. Discovery Plan and Cut-Off Date.

1. The parties shall exchange their Rule 26 disclosures on

or before March 14, 2008. 

2. The parties are ordered to complete all discovery on

or before September 15, 2008.

3. The parties are directed to disclose all expert

witnesses, in writing, on or before July 15, 2008. Any

supplemental or rebuttal expert disclosures will be made on or

before August 15, 2008. The parties will comply with the

provisions of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a) regarding

Case 1:07-cv-01624-OWW -GSA Document 14 Filed 02/15/08 Page 4 of 9
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

their expert designations. Local Rule 16-240(a) notwithstanding,

the written designation of experts shall be made pursuant to F.

R. Civ. P. Rule 26(a)(2), (A) and (B) and shall include all

information required thereunder. Failure to designate experts in

compliance with this order may result in the Court excluding the

testimony or other evidence offered through such experts that are

not disclosed pursuant to this order.

4. The provisions of F. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(4) shall 

apply to all discovery relating to experts and their opinions. 

Experts may be fully prepared to be examined on all subjects and

opinions included in the designation. Failure to comply will

result in the imposition of sanctions. 

X. Pre-Trial Motion Schedule.

1. All Non-Dispositive Pre-Trial Motions, including any

discovery motions, will be filed on or before November 15, 2008,

and heard on December 19, 2008, at 9:00 a.m. before Magistrate

Judge Gary S. Austin in Courtroom 10. 

2. In scheduling such motions, the Magistrate

Judge may grant applications for an order shortening time

pursuant to Local Rule 142(d). However, if counsel does not

obtain an order shortening time, the notice of motion must comply

with Local Rule 251. 

3. All Dispositive Pre-Trial Motions are to be

filed no later than December 1, 2008, and will be heard on

January 5, 2009, at 10:00 a.m. before the Honorable Oliver W.

Wanger, United States District Judge, in Courtroom 3, 7th Floor. 

In scheduling such motions, counsel shall comply with Local Rule

230. 

Case 1:07-cv-01624-OWW -GSA Document 14 Filed 02/15/08 Page 5 of 9
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

XI. Pre-Trial Conference Date.

1. February 9, 2009, at 11:00 a.m. in Courtroom 3, 7th

Floor, before the Honorable Oliver W. Wanger, United States

District Judge. 

2. The parties are ordered to file a Joint PreTrial Statement pursuant to Local Rule 281(a)(2). 

3. Counsel's attention is directed to Rules 281 

and 282 of the Local Rules of Practice for the Eastern District

of California, as to the obligations of counsel in preparing for

the pre-trial conference. The Court will insist upon strict

compliance with those rules.

XII. Trial Date.

1. March 24, 2009, at the hour of 9:00 a.m. in Courtroom

3, 7th Floor, before the Honorable Oliver W. Wanger, United

States District Judge. 

2. This is a jury trial.

3. Counsels' Estimate Of Trial Time:

a. 4 days.

4. Counsels' attention is directed to Local Rules

of Practice for the Eastern District of California, Rule 285. 

XIII. Settlement Conference.

1. A Settlement Conference is scheduled for November 4,

2008, at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom 10 before the Honorable Gary s.

Austin, United States Magistrate Judge. 

2. Unless otherwise permitted in advance by the

Court, the attorneys who will try the case shall appear at the

Settlement Conference with the parties and the person or persons

having full authority to negotiate and settle the case on any

Case 1:07-cv-01624-OWW -GSA Document 14 Filed 02/15/08 Page 6 of 9
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

terms at the conference. 

3. Permission for a party [not attorney] to attend

by telephone may be granted upon request, by letter, with a copy

to the other parties, if the party [not attorney] lives and works

outside the Eastern District of California, and attendance in

person would constitute a hardship. If telephone attendance is

allowed, the party must be immediately available throughout the

conference until excused regardless of time zone differences. 

Any other special arrangements desired in cases where settlement

authority rests with a governing body, shall also be proposed in

advance by letter copied to all other parties. 

4. Confidential Settlement Conference Statement. 

At least five (5) days prior to the Settlement Conference the

parties shall submit, directly to the Magistrate Judge's

chambers, a confidential settlement conference statement. The

statement should not be filed with the Clerk of the Court nor

served on any other party. Each statement shall be clearly

marked "confidential" with the date and time of the Settlement

Conference indicated prominently thereon. Counsel are urged to

request the return of their statements if settlement is not

achieved and if such a request is not made the Court will dispose

of the statement.

5. The Confidential Settlement Conference

Statement shall include the following: 

a. A brief statement of the facts of the 

case.

b. A brief statement of the claims and 

defenses, i.e., statutory or other grounds upon which the claims

Case 1:07-cv-01624-OWW -GSA Document 14 Filed 02/15/08 Page 7 of 9
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

8

are founded; a forthright evaluation of the parties' likelihood

of prevailing on the claims and defenses; and a description of

the major issues in dispute.

c. A summary of the proceedings to date.

d. An estimate of the cost and time to be

expended for further discovery, pre-trial and trial.

e. The relief sought.

f. The parties' position on settlement,

including present demands and offers and a history of past

settlement discussions, offers and demands. 

XIV. Request For Bifurcation, Appointment Of Special Master, 

Or Other Techniques To Shorten Trial. 

1. None. 

XV. Related Matters Pending.

1. There are no related matters.

XVI. Compliance With Federal Procedure.

1. The Court requires compliance with the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules of Practice for the

Eastern District of California. To aid the court in the

efficient administration of this case, all counsel are directed

to familiarize themselves with the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure and the Local Rules of Practice of the Eastern District

of California, and keep abreast of any amendments thereto.

XVII. Effect Of This Order.

1. The foregoing order represents the best

estimate of the court and counsel as to the agenda most suitable

to bring this case to resolution. The trial date reserved is

specifically reserved for this case. If the parties determine at

Case 1:07-cv-01624-OWW -GSA Document 14 Filed 02/15/08 Page 8 of 9
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

9

any time that the schedule outlined in this order cannot be met,

counsel are ordered to notify the court immediately of that fact

so that adjustments may be made, either by stipulation or by

subsequent scheduling conference. 

2. Stipulations extending the deadlines contained

herein will not be considered unless they are accompanied by

affidavits or declarations, and where appropriate attached

exhibits, which establish good cause for granting the relief

requested. 

3. Failure to comply with this order may result in

the imposition of sanctions. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 13, 2008 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

emm0d6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-01624-OWW -GSA Document 14 Filed 02/15/08 Page 9 of 9