Mandy Pollack v. Yonas Seyoum Alemu

Good Law
United States District Court, Central District of CaliforniaDecember 3, 20252:25-cv-06068California1,308 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

I. Background

On August 28, 2025, the Court issued an Order Setting Scheduling Conference, which set a September 27, 2025, deadline for Plaintiff Mandy Pollack (“Plaintiff’) and Defendant Yonas Seyoum Alemu (“Defendant”) to file a joint Rule 26(f) report and worksheet in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f), and set a scheduling conference for October 1, 2025. (ECF No. 17 (“Scheduling Order”)). The parties, however, failed to file a joint scheduling report. Because both parties are self-represented, the Court on October 7, 2025, continued the scheduling conference to October 30, 2025, and again ordered the parties to file a joint Rule 26(f) report and worksheet, this time no later than October 24, 2025. (ECF No. 19). Contrary to the Court’s Scheduling Order, which requires the parties to meet and confer before filing their Rule 26(f) report and worksheet jointly, (Scheduling Order at 2—3), the parties each separately filed a Rule 26(f) report, (ECF Nos. 20, 21). On October 30, 2025, during the scheduling conference, the Court informed the parties that their separate Rule 26(f) reports were being struck for lack of compliance …

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.