Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-01981/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-01981-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Harry Marvin Costa
Defendant
Scott Johnson
Plaintiff
Linda A Ratto
Defendant
Joseph P Ratto
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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Scott Johnson,

Plaintiff,

v.

Joseph P Ratto, in his 

individual and representative 

capacity as Trustee--Joseph P 

Ratto & Linda A Ratto 2000 

Trust; Linda A Ratto, in her 

individual and representative 

capacity as Trustee-- Joseph 

P Ratto & Linda A Ratto 2000

Trust; and Harry Marvin 

Costa,

Defendants

*.

No. 2:14-cv-01981-GEB-DD

STATUS (PRETRIAL SCHEDULING) 

ORDER

The status (pretrial scheduling) conference scheduled 

for hearing on November 24, 2014, is vacated since the parties‟ 

Joint Status Report filed on November 10, 2014 (“JSR”) indicates 

the following Order should issue.

DISMISSAL OF DOE DEFENDANTS

Since Plaintiff has not justified Doe defendants 

remaining in this action, Does 1-10 are dismissed. See Order 

Setting Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Conference filed August 26, 

2014, at 2 n.2 (indicating that if justification for “Doe” 

defendant allegations not provided Doe defendants would be 

 

* The caption has been amended according to the Dismissal of Doe 

Defendants portion of this Order. 

Case 2:14-cv-01981-GEB-DAD Document 10 Filed 11/21/14 Page 1 of 4
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

dismissed).

SERVICE, JOINDER OF ADDITIONAL PARTIES, AMENDMENT

No further service, joinder of parties or amendments to 

pleadings is permitted, except with leave of Court for good cause 

shown. 

DISCOVERY

All discovery shall be completed by December 22, 2015. 

“Completed” means all discovery shall be conducted so that any 

dispute relative to discovery shall have been resolved by 

appropriate orders, if necessary, and, where discovery has been 

ordered, the order has been complied with on or before the 

prescribed “completion” date.

Each party shall comply with Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 26(a)(2)(B) and (C)‟s initial expert witness disclosure 

requirements on or before August 28, 2015, and any contradictory 

and/or rebuttal expert disclosure authorized under Rule 

26(a)(2)(D)(ii) on or before September 28, 2015.

MOTION HEARING SCHEDULE

The last hearing date for a motion is February 22, 

2016, commencing at 9:00 a.m. Any motion shall be briefed as 

prescribed in Local Rule 230. 

The parties are cautioned that an untimely motion 

characterized as a motion in limine may be summarily denied.

FINAL PRETRIAL CONFERENCE

The final pretrial conference is set for April 25, 

2016, at 1:30 p.m. The parties are cautioned that the lead 

attorney who WILL TRY THE CASE for each party shall attend the 

Case 2:14-cv-01981-GEB-DAD Document 10 Filed 11/21/14 Page 2 of 4
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

final pretrial conference. In addition, all persons representing 

themselves and appearing in propria persona must attend the 

pretrial conference. 

The parties shall file a JOINT pretrial statement no 

later than seven (7) calendar days prior to the final pretrial 

conference. The joint pretrial statement shall address the 

applicable portions of Local Rule 281(b), and shall set forth 

each theory of liability (“claim”) and affirmative defense which 

remains to be tried, and the ultimate facts on which each 

theory/defense is based. Furthermore, each party shall estimate 

the length of 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.”). 

Final pretrial procedures are “critical for „promoting 

efficiency and conserving judicial resources by identifying the 

real issues prior to trial, thereby saving time and expense for 

everyone.‟” Friedman & Friedman, Ltd. v. Tim McCandless, Inc., 

606 F.3d 494, 498 (8th Cir. 2010) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 16 

Advisory Committee Note (1983 Amendment to subdivision (c)). 

“Toward that end, Rule 16 directs courts to use pretrial 

conferences to weed out unmeritorious claims and defenses before 

trial begins.” Smith v. Gulf Oil Co., 995 F.2d 638, 642 (6th Cir. 

1993). The parties are therefore provided notice that a claim or 

affirmative defense may be dismissed sua sponte if it is not 

shown to be triable in the joint final pretrial statement. Cf.

Case 2:14-cv-01981-GEB-DAD Document 10 Filed 11/21/14 Page 3 of 4
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

Portland Retail Druggists Ass‟n v. Kaiser Found. Health Plan, 662 

F.2d 641, 645 (9th Cir. 1981) (indicating that a party shall be 

provided notice and an opportunity to respond with facts 

sufficient to justify having a claim or affirmative defense 

proceed to trial); Portsmouth Square, Inc. v. S‟holders 

Protective Comm., 770 F.2d 866, 869 (9th Cir. 1985) (stating “the 

district court has . . . authority to grant summary judgment sua 

sponte in the context of a final pretrial conference”).

If feasible, 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.

TRIAL SETTING

Trial shall commence at 9:00 a.m. on July 26, 2016.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 20, 2014

Case 2:14-cv-01981-GEB-DAD Document 10 Filed 11/21/14 Page 4 of 4