(PS) Freedom Mortgage Corp. v. Madariaga

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA FREEDOM MORTGAGE No. 2:19-cv-2432 MCE DB PS CORPORATION, 13 Plaintiff, ORDER 14 v. CHRISTINA MADARIAGA, and SIELA MADARIAGA, 17 Defendants.

19 Defendant Christina Madariaga is proceeding in this action pro se. This matter was, therefore, referred to the undersigned in accordance with Local Rule 302(c)(21) and 28 U.S.C. § 21 636(b)(1). (ECF No. 11.) On February 11, 2020, defendant filed a document styled as a motion to dismiss. (ECF No. 6.) The document, however, is in fact an answer. Accordingly, this matter will be set for a Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Conference.

24 On June 29, 2020, defendant Christina Madariaga filed a document styled as a motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 18.) However, summary judgment should be entered, after adequate time for discovery and upon motion, against a party who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party’s case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial. See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986)). Here, discovery has not yet commenced and thus there has not been adequate time for discovery. Accordingly, the motion for summary judgment will be denied without prejudice to renewal.

4 On July 6, 2020, defendant Christina Madariaga also filed a motion seeking permission for electronic filing. (ECF No. 20.) Defendant’s filing, however, makes no reference to the Local Rules related to electronic filing. Accordingly, the undersigned is concerned that the defendant may not be aware of this court’s requirements for electronic filing. See generally Local Rules 131, 133, 137, 140, & 141. Defendant’s motion, therefore, will be denied without prejudice to filing a renewed motion that acknowledges that defendant has reviewed the court’s Local Rules and requirements for electronic filing.

11 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 12 1. A Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Conference is set for Friday, October 23, 2020, at 10:00 a.m. at the United States District Court, 501 I Street, Sacramento, California, in Courtroom No. 27 before the undersigned.

15 2. All parties are required to appear at the Status Conference, either by counsel or, if proceeding in propria persona, on his or her own behalf. Any party may appear at the status conference telephonically if the party pre-arranges such appearance by contacting Pete Buzo, the courtroom deputy of the undersigned magistrate judge, at (916) 930-4128, no later than 48 hours before the Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Conference; a party may not appear telephonically over a cellphone.

21 3. Plaintiff shall file and serve a status report on or before October 9, 2020, and defendants shall file and serve a status report on or before October 16, 2020. Each party’s status report shall address all of the following matters: 24 a. Progress of service of process; 25 b. Possible joinder of additional parties; 26 c. Possible amendment of the pleadings; 27 d. Jurisdiction and venue; //// WAU 2.497 VV VEILS WING Ll PVUULIICIIL CW VOrtacy Payee vviv 1 e. Anticipated motions and the scheduling thereof; 2 f. Anticipated discovery and the scheduling thereof, including 4 disclosure of expert witnesses; g. Future proceedings, including the setting of appropriate cut-off 4 dates for discovery and for law and motion, and the scheduling of a 5 final pretrial conference and trial; h. Modification of standard pretrial procedures specified by the rules 6 due to the relative simplicity or complexity of the action; 7 1. Whether the case is related to any other case, including matters in 3 bankruptcy; j. Whether the parties will stipulate to the magistrate judge assigned 9 to this matter acting as settlement judge, waiving any disqualification by virtue of her so acting, or whether they prefer to 10 have a Settlement Conference before another magistrate judge; 11 k. Whether the parties intend to consent to proceed before a United D States Magistrate Judge; and 1. Any other matters that may aid in the just and expeditious 13 disposition of this action.

14 4. The parties are cautioned that failure to file a status report or failure to appear at the | status conference may result in an order imposing an appropriate sanction. See Local Rules 110 | and 183.

17 5. Defendant’s June 29, 2020 motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 18) is denied | without prejudice to renewal.

19 6. Defendant’s July 6, 2020 motion for permission to e-file (ECF No. 20) is denied | without prejudice to renewal.

21 | Dated: August 29, 2020 A ORAH BARNES UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE DLB:6 26 DB\orders\orders.pro se\freedom2432.ossc