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
1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
LAURIE SUE DRAKE,
No. CIV.S-06-1956 DFL DAD PS
Plaintiff,
ORDER SETTING STATUS
v.
(PRETRIAL SCHEDULING)
CONFERENCE
WOLPOFF & ABRAMSON, LLP,
Defendant.
__________________________/
This action has been assigned to United States District
Judge David F. Levi and, pursuant to Local Rule 72-302(c)(21), has
been referred to Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd for all purposes
encompassed by that provision.
The parties are informed that they may, if all consent,
have this case tried by a United States Magistrate Judge while
preserving their right to appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals. An appropriate form for consent to trial by a magistrate
judge is attached. Any party choosing to consent may complete the
form and return it to the Clerk of the Court. Neither the magistrate
Case 2:06-cv-01956-RRB-DAD Document 8 Filed 09/11/2006 Page 1 of 4
(PS) Drake v. Wolpoff & Abramson
Doc. 8
Dockets.Justia.com
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
2
judge nor the district judge handling the case will be notified of
the filing of a consent form, unless all parties to the action have
consented.
Pursuant to the provisions of Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 16, as amended, effective December 1, 1993, IT IS ORDERED:
1. A Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Conference is set for
January 5, 2007, at 11:00 a.m., in Courtroom No. 27, before
Magistrate Judge Drozd.
2. Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
provides that this action may be dismissed if service of process is
not accomplished within 120 days from the date the complaint is
filed. In order to enable the court to comply with the 120-day time
limits specified in Rules 4(m) and 16(b), the court strongly
encourages plaintiff to complete service of process on all defendants
within sixty days of the date of filing of the complaint.
3. Concurrently with service of process, or as soon