Filed: August 24, 2026
| Entered: August 24, 2026
Guannan Shi et al v. M&D Regional Center, LLC et al
Other Statutes: Arbitration | California Central
Text Only Scheduling Notice
(IN CHAMBERS) ORDER by Chief Judge Dolly M. Gee. Having reviewed the Parties] responses to the Order to Show Cause Why This Case Should Not Be Dismissed for Lack of Prosecution [Doc. # 23 .], the Parties are reminded that pursuant to C.D. Cal. L.R. 83-2.5, "all matters must be called to a judge's attention by appropriate application or motion filed in compliance with these Local Rules," including the notice requirement of L.R. 6-1 and meet and confer requirement of L.R. 7-3. Given the nature of the case, it is not necessary for the Court to set a Scheduling Conference at this time. Within two weeks of this Order, the parties shall meet and confer and stipulate to an appropriate briefing schedule. The Order to Show Cause is DISCHARGED. IT IS SO ORDERED. THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (dd) TEXT ONLY ENTRY
Order | Filed: August 24, 2026
| Entered: August 24, 2026
Mayer v. HSBC Bank USA, National Association et al
Contract: Other | California Northern
1 - Terminate Deadlines and Hearings Order ~Util - Set Hearings
ORDER by Judge Noel Wise. The Court held a Trial Readiness Conference on August 19, 2026, during which the Court ordered the parties to file, by no later than August 21, 2026, a jointly agreed upon jury instruction for Plaintiff's RESPA claim (claim 8). On August 21, 2026, the parties filed a Joint Statement Regarding Jury Instruction for Claim No. 8. ECF No. 216. The filing did not provide the Court with a jointly agreed upon RESPA jury instruction, with clear language regarding the elements Plaintiff must prove to succeed on their claim. Instead, the parties filed a 14-page document with competing instructions and convoluted contentions, including arguments from Plaintiff that read like a motion for reconsideration challenging this Courts order granting in part Defendants motion for summary judgment.
The RESPA jury instruction is foundational to the parties moving forward to trial, as the instruction informs whether certain witnesses will testify (including experts) as to claim 8, and how much time those witnesses may need. Currently Plaintiff is asking to use 75% of all dedicated trial time, and the Court cannot assess the reasonableness of that request without a final RESPA jury instruction and a time estimate for each witness whose testimony is directly relevant to Plaintiffs RESPA claim.
For this matter to proceed to trial on September 28, 2026, the Court would need to issue a ruling on the RESPA instruction by August 24, 2026, so the parties could immediately finish preparing and filing all their jury instructions, and other trial related materials. The Court cannot rule on this dispute without further argument and potentially further briefing. The first available date for an argument of that length is not until September 23, 2026, at 1:30.
The Court sets a hearing for September 23, 2026, at 1:30 p.m., to address the issues regarding the RESPA jury instruction. The Court VACATES all other dates, including the pretrial conference set for August 25, 2026, and jury trial dates. The Court will reset the trial dates when all outstanding pretrial issues have been resolved and the Court has a reasonable estimate of trial time from Plaintiff.
(This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (nwlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/24/2026)