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 The caption has been amended according to the Dismissal of

Defendants portion of this order.

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LONNIE L. HODGES, )

) CIV. S-04-2535 GEB KJM

Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

) STATUS (PRETRIAL SCHEDULING)

COUNTY OF SHASTA; JIM POPE, Shasta )

County Sheriff; and DEPUTY PAT )

LANHAM;1 )

)

Defendants. )

)

READ THIS ORDER CAREFULLY. IT CONTAINS IMPORTANT DATES

WHICH THE COURT WILL STRICTLY ENFORCE AND WITH WHICH ALL COUNSEL AND

PARTIES MUST COMPLY. A FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE TERMS OF THIS ORDER

MAY RESULT IN THE IMPOSITION OF MONETARY AND ALL OTHER SANCTIONS

WITHIN THE POWER OF THE COURT, INCLUDING DISMISSAL OR AN ORDER OF

JUDGMENT.

The status (pretrial scheduling) conference scheduled in

this case for July 11, 2005, is vacated since the joint status report

(“JSR”) submitted by the parties obviates the need for the conference. 

Case 2:04-cv-02535-GEB -KJM Document 15 Filed 06/30/05 Page 1 of 10
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 Plaintiff’s counsel does not indicate the statute of

limitations would bar refiling the action as to these defendants. Mann

v. American Airlines, 324 F.3d 1088, 1090 (9th Cir. 2003) (indicating

consideration should be given to the possibility that the statute of

limitations would bar re-filing of the suit). 

2

The following order issues based on the parties’ joint status report

and available dates.

DISMISSAL OF DEFENDANTS

On March 18, 2005, an Order was filed notifying Plaintiff

“that any Defendant not served by March 30, 2005, could be dismissed

from this action without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 4(m).” In the JSR, it is represented that the following

defendants have not been served: City of Redding, Larry F. Moty,

Officer Zufall, Officer Fredrick, Officer Beeman, Corporal Bullington,

Officer Magleby, Officer Zales, Officer Zalesny, Officer Wilkes,

Officer Schultz, Officer Moravec, Officer Fredrick, and Officer

Ostrowski. These Defendants are therefore dismissed without

prejudice.2

Further, since Plaintiff has not justified Doe defendants

remaining in this action, Does 1-15 are dismissed. See Order Setting

Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Conference filed November 30, 2004, at 2

n.2 (indicating that if Plaintiff failed to set forth in the Joint

Status Report a date by when the identities of any "Doe" defendants

are expected to be discovered, the claims against Doe defendants would

be deemed abandoned and a dismissal order would follow).

SERVICE OF PROCESS

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

good cause having been shown.

Case 2:04-cv-02535-GEB -KJM Document 15 Filed 06/30/05 Page 2 of 10
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 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.

4 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

JOINDER OF ADDITIONAL PARTIES/AMENDMENT

No further 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 August 30, 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.3

(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 March 30, 2006, and with the rebuttal expert

disclosures authorized under the Rule on or before May 1, 2006. 

MOTION HEARING SCHEDULE

The last hearing date for motions shall be October 30, 2006,

at 9:00 a.m.4

All purely legal issues are to be resolved by timely

pretrial motions. Motions shall be filed in accordance with Local

Rule 78-230(b). Opposition papers shall be filed in accordance with

Case 2:04-cv-02535-GEB -KJM Document 15 Filed 06/30/05 Page 3 of 10
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

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). When the

last day for filing an opposition brief falls on a legal holiday, the

opposition brief shall be filed on the next court day immediately

following the legal holiday. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a). 

Any party bringing a motion to dismiss, motion for summary

judgment or summary adjudication, motion for judgment on the

pleadings, or motion to remand shall attach to the motion a copy of

the latest complaint (or cross-complaint where applicable).

 In determining any motion for summary judgment, the Court

will assume that the material facts as claimed in the movant's

Statement of Undisputed Facts and adequately supported by evidence are

admitted without controversy except to the extent that such material

facts are (1) disputed in the nonmovant's response to the movant's

"Statement of Undisputed Facts," and (2) controverted by declaration

or other written evidence filed in opposition to the motion. See L.R.

56-260(b); Nilsson, Robbin, et al., v. Louisiana Hydrolec, 854 F.2d

1538, 1545 (9th Cir. 1988). A party opposing a motion for summary

judgment must serve upon all parties and file with the Clerk of Court

the evidence upon which the opposing party will rely in opposition to

the motion in accordance with L.R. 78-230(c). Evidence not timely

filed by a party will not be considered. See Marshall v. Gates, 44

F.3d at 725. 

Case 2:04-cv-02535-GEB -KJM Document 15 Filed 06/30/05 Page 4 of 10
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 Such motions include contentions under the collateral estoppel

or res judicata doctrines.

5

Absent highly unusual circumstances, reconsideration of a

motion is appropriate only where:

(1) The Court is presented with newly discovered evidence

that could not have reasonably 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 have

reasonably 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.

The parties are reminded that motions in limine are

procedural devices designed to address the admissibility of evidence

and are cautioned that the Court will look with disfavor upon motions5

presented at the final pretrial conference or at trial in the guise of

motions in limine. The parties are further cautioned that if any

legal issue which should have been tendered to the Court by proper

pretrial motion requires resolution by the Court after the established

law and motion cut-off date, substantial sanctions may be assessed for

the failure to file the appropriate pretrial motion and/or the Court

may elect not to decide the motion and to treat it as untimely. See

U.S. Dominator, Inc. v. Factory Ship Robert E. Resoff, 768 F.2d 1099,

1104 (9th Cir. 1985) (affirming district court's denial of untimely

motion since "pretrial order controls the subsequent course of action

Case 2:04-cv-02535-GEB -KJM Document 15 Filed 06/30/05 Page 5 of 10
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 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. 

6

unless modified by a subsequent order"), rejected on other grounds,

Simpson v. Lear Astronics Corp., 77 F.3d 1170, 1174 (9th Cir. 1995);

Dedge v. Kendrick, 849 F.2d 1398 (11th Cir. 1988) (same). 

 FINAL PRETRIAL CONFERENCE

The final pretrial conference is set for December 18, 2006,

at 3:30 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 shall file a JOINT pretrial statement with the

Court not later than seven (7) days prior to the final pretrial

conference.6 The Court uses the parties' joint pretrial statement to

prepare its final pretrial order. The final pretrial order supersedes

the pleadings and controls the facts and 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.”). 

The following provisions of Local Rule 16-281 shall apply

with respect to the matters to be included in the joint pretrial

Case 2:04-cv-02535-GEB -KJM Document 15 Filed 06/30/05 Page 6 of 10
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 In this section of the joint pretrial statement the parties

must specify what the judge is expected to decide and what the jury is

expected to decide. For instance, if the judge is expected to make a

ruling after the jury decides factual disputes, the factual issues to be

submitted to the jury shall be specified.

8 In separate attachments to the joint pretrial statement each

party shall list all witnesses and each exhibit individually that the

party intends to offer at trial. Plaintiff’s exhibits shall be listed

numerically; defendant’s exhibits shall be listed alphabetically.

9 If there are no legal or equitable contentions, the title

shall reflect only what is at issue. The requirement in (b)(8) is

modified since a party only needs to state sufficient law to show

viability of an issue. But it must be clear whether precise federal or

state law governs. If state law governs, the state whose law is

applicable must be specified. Since the governing law is stated in

conjunction with the elemental facts to establish a pled claim or

defense, there is no need for a separate statement of disputed factual

issues required by (b)(4). The relief sought, referenced in (b)(7),

shall follow the issue or issues giving rise to that relief. 

7

statement: (b)(1), (b)(2),7 (b)(3), (b)(5), (b)(9), (b)(10),

(b)(11),8 (b)(12) to and including (b)(21), and (c). 

The subject matter in Local Rule 16-281(b)(4), (b)(7), and

(b)(8) shall be combined in a single section titled “Factual, Legal

and/or Equitable Contentions.”9 In the “Factual, Legal and/or

Equitable Contentions” section, the parties shall number or

alphabetize each individually-pled cause of action and pled

affirmative defense to preserve the issue for trial. Each pled claim

or affirmative defense must be accompanied by the elemental facts

supporting it and the relief sought, if applicable. For example: 

Plaintiff claims that Defendant violated her Fourth Amendment right to

be free from excessive force by applying the handcuffs too tight and

seeks general damages. If the parties disagree about the inclusion of

an issue in this section, that issue shall be followed by the title

“Controversy”, under which the parties’ respective positions on the

issue shall be stated. The parties are warned that the “Factual,

Case 2:04-cv-02535-GEB -KJM Document 15 Filed 06/30/05 Page 7 of 10
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

Legal and/or Equitable Contentions” section of the joint pretrial

statement could be used to specify the issues preserved for trial in

the pretrial order, and that order could issue without the court

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.”). Thus, if an issue is

omitted from this section of the joint pretrial statement, it is

waived, even if it appears in the pleadings. 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., Inc. 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]”). 

The parties are further warned that “since [the] process [of

having them delineate trial issues] is designed to promote efficiency

and conserve judicial resources, ‘there is no reason to require that

the elimination of non-trialworthy claims await a formal motion for

summary judgment.’” Berkovitz v. Home Box Office, Inc., 89 F.3d 24,

29 (1st Cir. 1996). "If the pretrial [statement] 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," the Court may

summarily dispose of the case or issue. Portsmouth Square v.

Case 2:04-cv-02535-GEB -KJM Document 15 Filed 06/30/05 Page 8 of 10
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

Shareholders Protective Comm., 770 F.2d 866, 868-69 (9th Cir. 1985)

(emphasis added). 

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 trial judge to act as settlement judge, written stipulations to

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

as the trial judge must be filed prior to the scheduling of the

settlement conference. See Local Rule 16-270(b). If the parties wish

to participate in Court-assisted settlement prior to the final

pretrial conference, they should contact the Deputy Clerk.

TRIAL SETTING

Trial is set for March 20, 2007, commencing at 9:00 a.m. 

MISCELLANEOUS

The parties are reminded that pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.

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. 

OBJECTIONS TO STATUS (PRETRIAL SCHEDULING) ORDER

Any party may, within ten (10) court days after the date

this Order is filed, file and serve written objections to any part of

this Order. Any objection must specify the requested correction,

Case 2:04-cv-02535-GEB -KJM Document 15 Filed 06/30/05 Page 9 of 10
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

10

addition, and/or deletion. Any response to an objection must be filed

and served within ten (10) court days after the objection is filed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 29, 2005

/s/ Garland E. Burrell, Jr.

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:04-cv-02535-GEB -KJM Document 15 Filed 06/30/05 Page 10 of 10