Order: MIMI SKINNER VS THE SKID ROW HOUSING TRUST, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION

• 
• 

						
                                
Preview
                                Reserved for Clerk's Filing Stamp
                        SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
                           COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES                                                                        Superior Court Of California
                                                                                                                              ‘ounty Of Los Angeles
       COURTHOUSE ADDRESS:

      111.N. Hill St., Los Angeles, Ca. 90012                                                                                APR 082021
       PLAINTIFF:

                                                                                                                       ee
                                                                                                                Sherri R.            IE)    ive Officer/Clerk
       DEFENDANT:                                                                                                By,                                 Depuy «

                         Skid                Row                                                             CASE NUMBER:
                                  CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER                                                        ZLOSTIV3Z76 Sv
      1. Case Management Conference
          oO    The parties have complied with California Rules of Court, rule 3.720 et seq., and nave filed case management statements on Judicial
             Council form CM-110.
          Oo The case management conference is continued to                                                          at 8:30 a.n. or
                                   am. oO p.m. due to one or both parties’ non-compliance with California Rules of Court rule
             3.720 et seq.                                                            is ordered to show cause at said conference
             why monetary sanctions should not be imposed for non-compliance with California Rules of Court, rule 3.720 et seq.
      2. Parties
                There oO is oO is not oO will be a cross-complaint(s) in this matter.
           C]   All named Defendants/Cross-Defendants have been served and have appeared, been defaulted or dismissed.
           O    Plaintiff is ordered to show cause on                                                 why sanctions, including dism:ssal,
                should not be imposed for failure to cause entry of Default/Default Judgment.
           (1   with the agreement of Plaintiff/Cross-Complainant, all unserved Defendants/Cross-Defendants and Does/Roes are
                dismissed/severed as of
          oO    Plaintiff/Cross-Complainant is ordered to show cause on                  why sanctions, including dismissal, should not be
                imposed for failure to serve a defendant/cross-defendant in compliance with California Rules of Court, rule 3.720 et seq.
      3. Alternative Dispute Resolution
           (] The case is [L_] referred (_] ordered} to ((] arbitration ] mediation [] neutral evaluation}
           O Voluntary settlement conference through (L_] court services [] private neutral]. (See L.A.S.C. Local Rules, Chapter 12.)
           O    The ADR process must be completed by
           (1 A post-ADR status conference is set for

      ‘ 1 ntDefendant has demanded jury and will
        [TA final status conference is set for
         (Uthe case is set for jury/court trial on
                                                         -
                                                       G- = C2
                                                                   mn    fees. (Code Civ. Proc., § 631.) ow
                                                                                at 8:30 a.m. or at
                                                                                         at      +2e         Lem.
                                                                                                                        fre        @ oa!
                                                                                                                                           Olam.Cpm.
                                                                                                                                               p.m.
         [-TTime estimated for trial is                     days.
         QO The identity of trial counsel is: O set forth in parties’ case management statements (form CM-110):
                    oO as follows: For Plaintiff:                                         . For Defendant:
tie   5. Other Issues
ha         LJ Pursuant to oO stipulation oO court order, the case is reclassified to limited jurisdiction.
me        oO There is a potentially related case, number                                                   . See further order below.
 oy
he        oO A mandatory settlement conference per California Rules of Court, rule 3.1380, is set for
oo
he            at                   a.m.     p.m. The parties are ordered to comply with California Rules of Court, rule 3.1380.
we         (J The court further orders as follows:

      Notice oO is waived      (haut be given by-PlaiatiffiDefendant oO has been given by deliveryof a copy of this ordeg          to counsel in open court.

      Dated:        ¥      ¥      ~2/                                                         Ai
                                                                                               dicial Officer
                                                                                                              IEL                          S. MURPHY

      LACIV 134 (Rev. 04/09)                           CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER                                      Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.720 el seq.
      LASC Approved 09-03
                                     DISTRIBUTION:       ORIGINAL - COURT FILE       COPIES - PLAINTIFFS & DEFENDANTS