Mann et al v. United States of America Doc. 16 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA FRESNO DIVISION

Similar documents
Case 4:04-cv RAS Document 41 Filed 12/09/2004 Page 1 of 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SHERMAN DIVISION

Case 2:18-cv KOB Document 49 Filed 02/12/19 Page 1 of 7

Synchronoss Technologies, Inc. v. Funambol, Inc. Doc. 52

BEFORE THE UNITED STATES JUDICIAL PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION

CASE 0:15-cv JRT Document 17 Filed 02/12/16 Page 1 of 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA INTRODUCTION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA. Plaintiffs,

Case5:12-cv HRL Document9 Filed08/09/12 Page1 of 5

Case 1:08-cv EGS Document 19 Filed 12/12/08 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

INITIAL CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION. Plaintiffs, Defendant.

Case MDL No Document 52 Filed 07/28/15 Page 1 of 3 BEFORE THE UNITED STATES JUDICIAL PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION

CASE NO: FORECLOSURE SCHEDULING ORDER. 1. Any prior order referring this case to Senior Judge Sandra Taylor is hereby VACATED.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION. Plaintiff, v. Case No. 8:13-cv-704-T-33TBM ORDER

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA COLUMBIA DIVISION

U.S. District Court Western District of Tennessee (Memphis) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:98-cv jsg

-SMS Owens v. Kraft Foods Global, Inc Doc. 19

THE LATEST DEVELOPMENTS IN MDL 875: A PRACTITIONER S EXPERIENCE

U.S. District Court Southern District of Florida (Ft Lauderdale) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 0:16-cv WJZ

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA WESTERN DIVISION, LOS ANGELES

U.S. District Court United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Foley Square) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:96-cv MBM-THK

U.S. District Court Northern District of Texas (Dallas) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 3:09-md N-BL

Adopted November 10, 2000, by Chief District Court Judge John W. Smith. See Separate Section on Rules governing Criminal and Juvenile Courts Rule

AS MODIFIED. Attorneys for Plaintiff, STERLING SAVINGS BANK UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

Multidistrict Litigation, Forum Selection and Transfer: Tips and Trends Julie M. Holloway Partner, Latham & Watkins LLP

*(CONSOLIDATED INTO 3951)* Docket Number: TO1 CONTACT CENTERS, INC. Jeffrey J. Reich, Esquire James W Kutz, Esquire VS.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT. District of Oregon. Plaintiff(s), vs. Case No: 6:07-CV-6149-HO. Defendant(s). Civil Case Assignment Order

CLEFL1 >' SO. DtT. OF IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA GENERAL ORDER

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania (Philadelphia) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:97-cv JP

U.S. District Court United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois (Urbana) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:98-cv MPM

Case 2:08-mc DWA Document 131 Filed 02/11/2009 Page 1 of 6

UNITED STATES JUDICIAL PANEL on MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION TRANSFER ORDER

Apex Compounding Pharmacy LLC v. efax Corporate et al

Case4:12-cv JSW Document34 Filed09/19/14 Page1 of 11

Case MDL No Document 76 Filed 11/18/15 Page 1 of 5 BEFORE THE UNITED STATES JUDICIAL PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Case 1:11-cv MGC Document 14 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/17/2011 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

LOCAL COURT RULES JUDICIAL DISTRICT 17A - ROCKINGHAM COUNTY. General Court of Justice-Superior Court Division. State of North Carolina

[Related Statewide Rule NMRA]

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Defendant/s.

U.S. District Court Eastern District of Michigan (Flint) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 4:98-cv PVG

SUGGESTED AMENDMENT SUPERIOR COURT CIVIL RULES (CR)

U.S. District Court Northern District of Georgia (Atlanta) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:17-cv TWT

Docket Number: 2818 MARK KUTNYAK. Mark Kutnyak, Pro Se GQ5407 VS. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

Case 2:17-cv GAM Document 56 Filed 03/23/18 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Case 3:12-cv VC Document 119 Filed 05/09/17 Page 1 of 13 (Counsel listed on signature page)

THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Case 3:16-cv CRS-CHL Document 36 Filed 06/29/17 Page 1 of 5 PageID #: 423

Case 1:15-cv ELR Document 60 Filed 09/08/16 Page 1 of 21

#25902 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EEOC v. Mcdonald's Restaurants of California, Inc.

Case: 1:14-cv Document #: 85 Filed: 06/12/14 Page 1 of 13 PageID #:1268

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORTH WORTH DIVISION

Heckel, Brian v. 3M Company et al Doc. 24 Att. 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

U.S. District Court Southern District of New York (Foley Square) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:14-cv GBD

JURISDICTION AND LOCAL RULES. Constitution, laws or treaties of the United States. 28 U.S.C.A This is called federal

Case 1:14-md JMF Document 875 Filed 04/24/15 Page 1 of 8

LOCAL SMITH COUNTY RULES OF CIVIL TRIAL JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURTS AND COUNTY COURTS AT LAW SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION. V. No. 3:15-cv-818-D-BN

14 th JUDICIAL DISTRICT DISTRICT COURT DIVISION GENERAL CIVIL RULES

Case 3:17-cv RS Document 380 Filed 04/19/18 Page 1 of 5

U.S. District Court U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma (Tulsa) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 4:10-cv TCK -PJC

Case CO/1:15-cv Document 9 Filed 07/14/15 Page 1 of 9 BEFORE THE UNITED STATES JUDICIAL PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

THE COURTS. Title 249 PHILADELPHIA RULES

Case MDL No Document 142 Filed 06/02/16 Page 1 of 7. UNITED STATES JUDICIAL PANEL on MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE

Smith v. RJM Acquisitions Funding, LLC Doc. 35 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA FORT MYERS DIVISION

First Judicial District of Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Trial Division Civil Section CIVIL CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

U.S. District Court Southern District of New York (Foley Square) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:12-cv AJN

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS BELMONT COUNTY, OHIO. : Plaintiff : vs. : FINAL PRETRIAL ORDER : Case No. Defendant :

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Case MDL No Document 1-1 Filed 02/12/15 Page 1 of 7 BEFORE THE UNITED STATES JUDICIAL PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION

UNITED STATES JUDICIAL PANEL on MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION TRANSFER ORDER

Case 1:11-cv JEM Document 60 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/22/2011 Page 1 of 8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION MARY LOU BENNEK, Derivatively on ) Behalf of THE HOME DEPOT, INC.

Case MDL No Document 255 Filed 09/04/12 Page 1 of 7 BEFORE THE UNITED STATES JUDICIAL PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION

LOCAL RULES AND PROCEDURES FOR THE CALENDARING OF CIVIL CASES DISTRICT COURT DIVISION

17B-005. Civil injunction proceedings. A. Petition for civil injunction. If chief disciplinary counsel or, when necessary, chief disciplinary counsel

Docket Number: 3757 WASHINGTON ENGINEERING & CONSTRUCTION CO. Mark F. Nowak, Esquire VS. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania (Philadelphia) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:99-cv RBS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION. ELAINE SCOTT, Plaintiff, Case No. 4:09-cv-3039-MH v.

US District Court for the Southern District of New York

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA

U.S. District Court Southern District of New York (Foley Square) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:13-cv ER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

U.S. District Court Southern District of New York (Foley Square) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:08-cv PAC

Case MDL No Document 84 Filed 04/04/18 Page 1 of 5. UNITED STATES JUDICIAL PANEL on MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION TRANSFER ORDER

It appearing that the civil actions listed on Schedule A, attached hereto -- which were

Docket Number: 1722 LEHIGH VALLEY BUILDING SYSTEMS, INC. Emil W. Kantra, III, Esquire Erich J. Schock, Esquire CLOSED VS.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA. JOINT RULE 26(f) PRETRIAL REPORT vs.

Defendants, 1:16CV425

Case 1:15-cv IMK Document 8 Filed 07/21/15 Page 1 of 12 PageID #: 137

Case 1:13-cv MSK-MJW Document 3 Filed 05/17/13 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Transcription:

Mann et al v. United States of America Doc. 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA FRESNO DIVISION 1 ROGER MANN, an individual; SHERRIE MANN, an individual, v. Plaintiffs, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant. Case No. 1:-cv-0-AWI-SKO Related Case No. 1:-cv-00-AWI-SKO STIPULATION TO CONTINUE SCHEDULING CONFERENCE; ORDER THEREON Defendant UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiffs ROGER MANN and SHERRIE MANN, and Defendant DNC PARKS & RESORTS AT YOSEMITE, INC. and related entities (collectively, the Parties ) by and through their counsel of record in this action, hereby agree and stipulate as follows: To continue the March, deadline to file a Joint Scheduling Report until June, and to continue the Scheduling Conference currently set for March, until June,. AIGX0/1- Dockets.Justia.com

1 I. RELEVANT FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND MDL Motion: Plaintiffs Roger Mann and Sherrie Mann filed their complaint in the United States District Court Eastern District of California on November 1, against Defendant United States of America (Case No. 1:-cv-0-AWI-SAB). As detailed within the complaint, this case involves damages arising from the contraction of the Hantavirus. (Complaint, ). On November,, this Court issued an Order Setting a Mandatory Scheduling Conference for February,. Defendant United States of America filed its answer to Plaintiffs complaint on January,. Other plaintiffs have filed related Hantavirus litigation against the USA. Since filing an answer in this matter, Defendant United States of American has received an amended pleading alleging similar factual information in a Hantavirus case filed in Middle District of Pennsylvania (case No.: :-CV-), a new hantavirus complaint against Defendant USA in the Eastern District of California (case No.: 1:-at-00), and two similar cases in the Northern District of California (related cases No.: :-cv-001-nc and No.: :-cv- 001-NC). Based on these known cases, along with future anticipated related actions pending in different districts covering one or more common questions of fact, Defendant United States of America filed an Multi District Litigation petition to transfer of all actions to the Eastern District of California for Multidistrict Litigation pursuant to U.S.C. 0 (MDL Case No. ). Based on information and belief, the MDL panel will hear the United States motion to transfer on May,. If the transfer request is approved, a Multidistrict Litigation panel will assist the parties in resolving disputed facts, ruling on defenses, coordinating discovery deadlines, and setting pretrial matters. As noted within U.S.C. 0, the transfers for such proceedings is intended for the convenience of parties and witnesses and will promote the just and efficient conduct of such actions. As a result, the parties in this action originally stipulated that it may be premature to agree upon items #1- as requested within this court s November, scheduling order. AIGX0/1-

1 The Court approved a stipulation on February,. (Docket #). Related Mann Case: After an executed and Court approved stipulation in Case No. 1:-cv-0-AWI-SAB, Defendant DNC PARKS & RESORTS AT YOSEMITE, INC. (and related entities) notified this Court of a related case filed by the same Mann Plaintiffs against DNC entities. (Docket #). After receipt of this notice, on February,, this Court ordered the two Mann cases related and reassigned the US action to Judge Oberto. (Docket #1). On February,, Judge Oberto advanced the previously stipulated approved May, initial scheduling conference to the dates scheduled within case No. 1:-cv-00-AWI-SKO. (Docket #). As the issues related to MDL still apply to both Mann cases, the parties stipulate that it may be premature to agree upon items detailed within Judge Oberto s scheduling order currently set for March,. In addition, in the case formerly numbered 1:-cv-00-AWI-SKO, Defendant DNC PARKS & RESORTS AT YOSEMITE, INC. filed a motion to dismiss. This motion was submitted for decision on //. As Plaintiffs MANN and Defendant DNC PARKS & RESORTS AT YOSEMITE, INC. are still awaiting receipt of the court s ruling on the motion to dismiss, the parties stipulate that the currently set scheduling conference in this case may be premature. II. AUTHORITY FOR STIPULATION Based on this procedural history and anticipated future handling, pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule (b), good cause exists to extend the deadline to file a Joint Scheduling Report and good cause exists to continue the Scheduling Conference until the dates requested by the parties or until dates convenient within this Court s calendar. Pursuant to Local Rule (d), the parties sought to obtain a necessary extension from the Court as soon as the need for an extension became apparent. Pursuant to Local Rule (b), one related prior stipulation regarding the Scheduling Conference has been executed by the parties but AIGX0/1-

1 has since been altered after notice of related case. IT IS SO STIPULATED. Dated: March 1, Dated: March 1, Dated: March 1, ARCHER NORRIS APLC /s/ K.C. Ward Kenneth C. Ward Attorneys for Defendants UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE and NATIONAL PARK SERVICE CALLAHAN, THOMPSON, SHERMAN & CAUDILL, LLP /s/ Robert W. Thompson ROBERT W. THOMPSON, Attorneys for Plaintiffs ROGER MANN and SHERRIE MANN PHILLIPS LYTLE, LLP /s/ Jennifer Shah JENNIFER SHAH Attorneys for Defendant DNC PARKS & RESORTS AT YOSEMITE, INC. (and related entities) ORDER Pursuant to the parties' stipulation and for good cause showing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. The scheduling conference currently set for March,, in Mann v. USA, No. 1:-cv-0-AWI-SKO, and related case Mann v. DNC Parks & Resorts at Yosemite, Inc., et al., No. 1:-cv-00-AWI-SKO is CONTINUED to Thursday, AIGX0/1-

June,, at :0 a.m.; 1 and. In both Mann v. USA, No. 1:-cv-0-AWI-SKO, and related case Mann v. D NC Parks & Resorts at Yosemite, Inc., et al., 1:-cv-00-AWI-SKO, the parties shall file a joint scheduling report on or before June,. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: March, /s/ Sheila K. Oberto UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 1 1 The parties requested the scheduling conference be continued to Friday, June, ; that date has been modified by one day due to the Court's calendar. AIGX0/1-