Sanchez v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc.

District Court, E.D. California·Decided January 22, 2024·No. 1:23-cv-01169·Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA LILLIANA SANCHEZ, Case No. 1:23-cv-01169-NODJ-CDB Plaintiff, SCHEDULING ORDER (Fed. R. Civ. P. 16)

v. Discovery Deadlines: - Rule 26 Disclosures: March 19, 2024 EXPERIAN INFORMATION - Amended Pleadings: March 19, 2024 SOLUTIONS, INC., EQUIFAX - Expert Disclosures: August 2, 2024 INFORMATION SERVICES, LLC - Rebuttal Disclosures: August 30, 2024 - Fact Discovery Cut-Off: July 19, 2024 Defendants. - Expert Discovery Cut-Off: September 30, 2024 - Mid-Discovery Status Conference: June 7, 2024, at 9:30 a.m., in Bakersfield Federal Courthouse 510 19th Street, Bakersfield, CA 93301

Non-Dispositive Motion Deadlines: - Filing: October 9, 2024 - Hearing: On November 13, 2024, at 10:30 a.m., Bakersfield Federal Courthouse Dispositive Motion Deadlines: - Filing: December 14, 2024 - Hearing: January 27, 2025, 1:30 p.m,, in Robert E. Coyle Federal Courthouse, Fresno, Courtroom 5, 7th Floor Pre-Trial Conference: March 10, 2025, at 1:30 p.m., in Fresno Federal Courthouse

Trial: May 5, 2025, at 8:30 a.m., in Fresno Federal Courthouse Plaintiff Lilliana Sanchez initiated this action with the filing of a complaint in state court on June 22, 2023. (Doc. 1-1 p. 14). Thereafter, the action was removed to this Court on August 4, 2023. Plaintiff raises claims against Defendant Experian Information Solutions, Inc. (“Experian”), under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”). The parties convened via Zoom videoconference for a scheduling conference before Magistrate Judge Christopher D. Baker on January 19, 2024. Gerardo Sosa appeared on behalf of Plaintiff; Amy Lopez appeared on behalf of Defendant Experian.1 I. Magistrate Judge Consent: Currently the parties do not jointly consent to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction. Notice of Congested Docket and Court Policy of Trailing Due to the District Judges’ heavy caseload, the adopted policy of the Fresno Division of the Eastern District is to trail all civil cases. The parties are hereby notified that for a trial date set before a District Judge, the parties will trail indefinitely behind any higher priority criminal or older civil case set on the same date until a courtroom becomes available. The trial date will not be reset. Further, as of the date of entry of this scheduling order, this matter is assigned to “No District Court Judge (NODJ)” until a new district judge is appointed.2 The Magistrate Judges’ availability is far more realistic and accommodating to parties than that of the District Judges who carry the heaviest caseloads in the nation and who must prioritize criminal and older civil cases over more recently filed civil cases. A Magistrate Judge may conduct trials, including entry of final judgment, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 73, and Local Rule 305. Any appeal from a judgment entered by a Magistrate Judge is taken directly to the United States Court of Appeal for the Ninth Circuit. Therefore, the parties are directed to consider consenting to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction to

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Sanchez v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc., (E.D. Cal. 2024).

Sanchez v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc. (Sanchez v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Foman v. Davis
371 U.S. 178 (Supreme Court, 1962)