Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Stuart v. Manriquez

United States District Court, W.D. Texas, San Antonio Division

August 5, 2019

LEOLA ADELENA STUART, Plaintiff,
v.
TRINIDAD MANRIQUEZ, SAPD OFFICER, Defendant.

          ORDER RESETTING INITIAL PRETRIAL CONFERENCE

          ELIZABETH S. ("BETSY") CHESTNEY, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.

         Before the Court in the above-styled and numbered cause of action is Defendant Trinidad Manriquez's Motion to Reset Initial Pretrial Conference [#58]. By her motion, Defendant informs the Court of her conflict with the Initial Pretrial Conference currently set for August 28, 2019. The Court will therefore reset the conference as follows:

         IT IS HEREBY ORDERED Defendant Trinidad Manriquez's Motion to Reset Initial Pretrial Conference [#58] is GRANTED.

         IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the conference currently set for August 28, 2019 is CANCELED.

         IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Rule 16 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, this case is set for an Initial Pretrial Conference at 1:30 p.m. on August 27, 2019, in Courtroom B on the 4th Floor of the John H. Wood, Jr. United States Courthouse, 655 E. Cesar Chavez Boulevard, San Antonio, Texas, 78206.

         At the conference, the Court will enter a Scheduling Order in this case and assign the parties a date for a jury or bench trial. Plaintiff and counsel for Defendant Manriquez may appear by phone for the conference. Counsel should contact Valeria Sandoval, the Courtroom Deputy, for call-in information at chestneychambers@txwd.uscourts.gov. The use of speaker phones is prohibited during a telephonic appearance.

         IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties confer in the manner required by Rule 26(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and submit a Joint Discovery/Case Management Plan that answers the following questions no later than Monday, August 26, 2019:

1. Are there any outstanding jurisdictional issues? For removed cases based on diversity jurisdiction, do the parties agree that the amount in controversy exceeded $75, 000 at the time of removal? If not, each party should state its position on the amount in controversy.
2. Are there any unserved parties? If more than 90 days have passed since the filing of the Complaint or petition, should these unserved parties be dismissed?
3. What are the causes of action, defenses, and counterclaims in this case? What are the elements of the cause(s) of action, defenses, and counterclaims pled?
4. Are there any agreements or stipulations that can be made about any facts in this case or any element in the cause(s) of action?
5. State the parties' views and proposals on all items identified in Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(f)(3).
6. What, if any, discovery has been completed? What discovery remains to be done? Have the parties considered ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.