Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00369/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00369-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
James F. Bumb
Defendant
Bumb Construction
Defendant
James W. Bumb dba Bumb Construction
Defendant
Richard Steven Dowell
Defendant
Explorer Insurance Company
Plaintiff
Andrew Nolen
Defendant
Rylee Nolen
Defendant

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EXPLORER INSURANCE COMPANY, )

) 2:05-cv-00369-GEB-DAD

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) STATUS (PRETRIAL

) SCHEDULING) ORDER

ANDREW NOLEN, RYLEE NOLEN, )

RICHARD STEVEN DOWELL, JAMES F. )

BUMB, JAMES W. BUMB dba BUMB )

CONSTRUCTION, BUMB CONSTRUCTION, )

and DOES 1 through 10, and )

COMPANIES RED, WHITE, and BLUE, )

) 

Defendants. )

)

A status conference was held in this action on October 3,

2005. Only Plaintiff and Defendant Andrew Nolen appeared. At the

status conference the default proceeding against Defendant Richard

Steven Dowell (“Dowell”) was discussed, and the undersigned judge

retained the matter of hearing any motion for entry of default

judgment against Dowell. Local Rule 72-302(d) (“a Judge may retain

any matter routinely referred to a Magistrate Judge”). Further,

Plaintiff’s request for court approval of its stipulation with

Defendants James F. Bumb, James W. Bumb dba Bumb Construction, and

Case 2:05-cv-00369-GEB-DAD Document 25 Filed 10/06/05 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

1 This ruling does not invalidate the referenced stipulation,

assuming it is valid as to the stipulating parties. 

2 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.

2

Bumb Construction was discussed and rejected for the reasons stated on

the record.1 Based on the above decisions and input from counsel the

action is scheduled as follows. 

SERVICE OF PROCESS

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

good cause having been shown.

JOINDER OF ADDITIONAL PARTIES/AMENDMENT

No joinder of parties or amendments to pleadings is

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

DISCOVERY

(a) All discovery shall be completed by March 31, 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.2

(b) Each party shall comply with Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 26(a)(2)’s initial expert witness disclosure and report

requirements on or before October 28, 2005, and with the rebuttal

expert disclosures authorized under the Rule on or before February 19,

2006. 

Case 2:05-cv-00369-GEB-DAD Document 25 Filed 10/06/05 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 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.

3

MOTION HEARING SCHEDULE

The last hearing date for motions shall be May 22, 2006, at

9:00 a.m.3

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-00369-GEB-DAD Document 25 Filed 10/06/05 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 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. 

4

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 July 31, 2006, 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.4 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-00369-GEB-DAD Document 25 Filed 10/06/05 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

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, written stipulations

to this effect which waive the judge's disqualification from later

acting as the discovery judge must be filed prior to the scheduling of

the settlement conference. See L. R. 16-270(b). If the parties wish

Case 2:05-cv-00369-GEB-DAD Document 25 Filed 10/06/05 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

to participate in Court-assisted settlement prior to the final

pretrial conference, they should contact the Deputy Clerk.

TRIAL SETTING

Trial is set for September 26, 2006, 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: October 5, 2005

/s/ Garland E. Burrell, Jr.

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:05-cv-00369-GEB-DAD Document 25 Filed 10/06/05 Page 6 of 6