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
FONDA WHITFIELD, and THE
)
ESTATE OF DEON WHITFIELD, by
)
CIV. S-04-2729 GEB JFM
Fonda Whitfield,
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
v.
)
ORDER VACATING CONSOLIDATION
)
AND RESCHEDULING FINAL
STATE OF CALIFORNIA; STATE OF
) PRETRIAL CONFERENCE AND
)
TRIAL IN CIVIL ACTION
CALIFORNIA YOUTH AUTHORITY;
)
CIV. S-04-2730 GEB JFM
JERRY HARPER; WALTER ALLEN III;
)
JEFF HARADA; DR. PARAGUAN;
)
HAMID SIAL, MD.; AND UNKNOWN
)
EMPLOYEES AND AGENTS which are
)
named as DOES 1-100, inclusive,
)
)
Defendants.
)
)
ALAN FEASTER, GLORIA FEASTER, THE )
ESTATE OF DURRELL FEASTER, by
)
CIV. S-04-2730 GEB JFM
Alan Feaster and Gloria Feaster,
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
v.
)
)
STATE OF CALIFORNIA; STATE OF
)
CALIFORNIA YOUTH AUTHORITY;
)
JERRY HARPER; WALTER ALLEN III;
)
JEFF HARADA; DR. PARAGUAN;
)
HAMID SIAL, MD.; AND UNKNOWN
)
EMPLOYEES AND AGENTS which are
)
named as DOES 1-100, inclusive,
)
)
Defendants.
)
)
Defendants object to the Order Consolidating Actions and
Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Order (“Order”) filed on April 20, 2005,
Case 2:04-cv-02730-GEB-JFM Document 16 Filed 06/06/2005 Page 1 of 2
Feaster v. California State, et al
Doc. 16
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
27
28
1
The Order provided Plaintiffs ten court days within which to
respond to Defendants’ Objection. (Order at 10.)
2
Thus, the actions are related within the meaning of L.R. 83-
123 but are not consolidated.
2
which consolidated these actions sua sponte. Since Plaintiffs have
not responded to the objection within the time period prescribed for a
response,1 the portion of the Order which consolidated the actions is
withdrawn nunc pro tunc as of the date of the consolidation.2
Further, the Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Order in the Order
applies to both actions except for the scheduling of the final
pretrial conference and trial dates in CIV. S-04-273