Docstoc

12-2 Standing Order

Document Sample
12-2 Standing Order Powered By Docstoc
					Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG
1 2 3 4 5 6

Document 12

Filed 01/08/2007

Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8 9 10 11 In RE: 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 1. Civil law and motion calendar is held on Fridays at 8:30 a.m. in Courtroom 8, sixth floor . STANDING ORDER IN ALL CIVIL CASES ASSIGNED TO U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE LAWRENCE J. O'NEILL CASE NO. 1:07−CV−00026−OWW−LJO

21 It is not necessary to clear a date prior to scheduling law and motion hearings. The parties are 22 required to comply with Local Rules 37−251 and 78−230, as applicable. 23 2. Unless prior leave of court is obtained seven days before the filing date, all moving and

24 opposition briefs or legal memorandum in civil cases shall not exceed 25 pages. Reply briefs filed by 25 moving parties shall not exceed 10 pages. Briefs that exceed this page limitation or are sought to be 26 filed without leave may not be considered. 27 //// 28 ////

1

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG
1

Document 12

Filed 01/08/2007

Page 2 of 2

3. The Court requires Joint Scheduling Conference Statements and Joint Pre−trial statements,

2 where Magistrate Judge O'Neill is the hearing officer. The statements must be electronically filed in 3 CM/ECF seven days before the hearing date and must be e−mailed, in WordPerfect or Word format, 4 to ljoorders@caed.uscourts.gov. 5 4. Telephonic appearances before Magistrate Judge O'Neill are encouraged. The parties may

6 appear at hearings by telephone by arranging a one−line conference call and telephoning the Court at 7 (559) 499−5680 . 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 /s/ LAWRENCE J. O'NEILL UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE IT IS SO ORDERED

2


				
DOCUMENT INFO
Description: David F. Jadwin v. Kern County: 1:07-cv-26 in the United Stated District Court for the Eastern District of California, Fresno Division before Judge Oliver W. Wanger. This was a 2009 federal employment lawsuit that went to a bench and jury trial resulting in a unanimous verdict and significant judgment for the plaintiff employee. Issues involved violations of medical leave and disability discrimination laws, as well as 42 U.S.C. 1983 procedural due process violation. Plaintiff was represented by Eugene Lee, a Los Angeles, California employment lawyer.