(PS) Zochlinski v. Regents of the University of California, et al, No. 2:2010cv01824 - Document 93 (E.D. Cal. 2016)
Court Description: ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 2/16/2016 ORDERING that the court will defer consideration of plaintiff's pending 90 motion for sanctions, 91 motion to substitute, and 92 request to use electronic filing until after t he pending 83 findings and recommendations have been resolved. Defendants are not required to file an opposition or otherwise respond to plaintiff's motions or request until directed by the court to do so via subsequent order. The 3/17/2016 hearing regarding plaintiff's motion for sanctions and motion to substitute is VACATED. (Zignago, K.)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 HOWARD ALAN ZOCHLINSKI, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 15 No. 2:10-cv-1824-KJM-KJN (PS) ORDER v. REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, et al., Defendants. 16 17 On February 9, 2016, plaintiff filed a motion for sanctions and motion to substitute the 18 19 deceased defendant John Jones with his daughter, his purported sole surviving heir, pursuant to 20 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(a)(1), both of which are currently scheduled for hearing on 21 March 17, 2016. (ECF Nos. 90, 91.) On that same day, plaintiff also filed a request to use the 22 court’s electronic filing system in this action. (ECF No. 92.) In light of the pending findings and 23 recommendations issued on November 4, 2015, recommending that defendants’ motion to 24 dismiss be granted and this entire action be dismissed with prejudice (ECF No. 83), and in the 25 interest of preserving scarce judicial resources, the court finds it appropriate to defer 26 consideration of plaintiff’s two motions and request until the pending findings and 27 recommendations have been resolved by the assigned district judge. 28 //// 1 1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 2 1. The court will defer consideration of plaintiff’s pending motion for sanctions (ECF 3 No. 90), motion to substitute (ECF No. 91),1 and request to use electronic filing (ECF No. 92) 4 until after the pending findings and recommendations (ECF No. 83) have been resolved. 5 Defendants are not required to file an opposition or otherwise respond to plaintiff’s motions or 6 request until directed by the court to do so via subsequent order. 7 2. The March 17, 2016 hearing regarding plaintiff’s motion for sanctions and motion 8 to substitute is VACATED. After resolution of the pending findings and recommendations, if the 9 court determines that a hearing is necessary, it will schedule one via a subsequent order. 10 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: February 16, 2016 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 While the court declines to consider the merits of plaintiff’s motion for substitution at this juncture, it recognizes that plaintiff’s motion has been timely filed within the 90-day period required under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(a)(1). 2
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
