Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

White v. Lindermen

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit

August 28, 2013

DEMETRIUS M. WHITE, Plaintiff,
v.
MIKE LINDERMEN, et al., Defendants.

ORDER

ROBERT C. BROOMFIELD, Senior District Judge.

The deadlines set forth in the Scheduling Order (Doc. 23) as amended by Orders (Doc. 36, 29), have passed. Further, this court recently granted the motion for summary judgment by defendants Linderman and Desmond, to the extent plaintiff "requests damages under RLUIPA [the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc et seq. ] and moratory damages[.]" Ord. (Doc. 68) at 20, ¶ (2). The court denied the remainder of defendants' summary judgment motion, however. Id . Because this action now is ready for trial, the court hereby ORDERS that plaintiff pro se and the attorney or attorneys who will be responsible for the trial of this lawsuit prepare a proposed Joint Final Pretrial Order and lodge it with the Clerk of the Court by no later than October 28, 2013.

Although it is the defendants' responsibility to ensure that the proposed Joint Final Pretrial Order is properly prepared and timely lodged, the plaintiff pro se shall fully cooperate with the defendants to ensure that such Order is properly prepared and timely lodged. That proposed Joint Final Pretrial Order shall be signed by plaintiff pro se and defense counsel. Plaintiff pro se may authorize defense counsel to sign on his behalf.

The content of the proposed Joint Final Pretrial Order shall include, but is not limited to, that prescribed in the form of the proposed Joint Final Pretrial Order attached hereto.

Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 16(d) and 37(c), the court will not allow the parties to modify the Joint Final Pretrial Order or introduce at trial any exhibits, witnesses, or other information or to make any objections to exhibits that were not previously specified and/or disclosed as directed by the Court in the Joint Final Pretrial Order, except to prevent manifest injustice. Galdamez v. Potter , 415 F.3d 1015, 1020 (9th Cir. 2005).

After the lodging of the signed proposed Joint Final Pretrial Order, at a date to be set by the court, the parties shall participate telephonically in a Pretrial Conference to discuss that Proposed Order. Plaintiff may appear by telephone. Counsel for the defendants shall provide the Court with a telephone number where plaintiff may be contacted and make the necessary arrangements for his appearance by telephone at the hearing. Following that Pretrial Conference, the court will issue the Final Pretrial Order and set a trial date for this action.

IT IS ORDERED that:

(1) the reference to the Magistrate Judge is withdrawn; and
(2) the parties shall lodge a Proposed Joint Final Pretrial Order in accordance herewith by no later than October 28, 2013.

Copies to counsel of record and plaintiff pro se White

FINAL PRETRIAL ORDER

This Final Pretrial Order supersedes the pleadings and shall govern the trial and further proceedings in this case.

A. STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION. Cite the statute(s) which gives this Court jurisdiction:

(example - Jurisdiction in this case is based on diversity of citizenship under ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.