Aubert v. Elijah et al

Filing 93

NOTICE to Parties Regarding Impacted Trial Calendar and Availability of Consent to U.S. Magistrate Judge Jurisdiction, signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 7/26/13. (Gonzalez, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

ESS’NN AUBERT,
Plaintiff,

11
v.
12
13

C/O KEVIN ELIJAH AND C/O MARIO
GARCIA,

14

Case No. 1:07-cv-01629-LJO-GSA PC
NOTICE TO PARTIES REGARDING
IMPACTED TRIAL CALENDAR AND
AVAILABILITY OF CONSENT TO U.S.
MAGISTRATE JUDGE JURISDICTION

Defendants.
_____________________________________/

15
16

This matter is currently set for jury trial before U.S. District Judge Lawrence J. O’Neill on

17 October 29, 2013, and the Defendants have declined to consent to U.S. Magistrate Judge
18 jurisdiction. The parties are hereby notified of the following regarding Judge O’Neill’s impacted
19 trial calendar and its potential effect on their trial date.
20

Judges in the Eastern District of California carry the heaviest caseload in the nation, and

21 this Court is unable to devote inordinate time and resources to individual cases and matters. Judge
22 O’Neill must adhere to strict scheduling to best manage his burdensome caseload approaching
23 2,000 cases.
24

This case is currently fourth on Judge O’Neill’s trial calendar, and civil trials set before

25 Judge O'Neill trail until he becomes available and are subject to suspension mid-trial to
26 accommodate criminal matters. Civil trials are no longer reset to a later date if Judge O'Neill is
27 unavailable on the original date set for trial. If a trial trails, it may proceed with little advance
28 notice, and the parties and counsel may be expected to proceed to trial with less than 24 hours

1 notice. Moreover, this Court’s Fresno Division randomly and without advance notice reassigns
2 civil actions to U.S. District Judges throughout the nation to serve as visiting judges. In the
3 absence of Magistrate Judge consent, this action is subject to reassignment to a U.S. District Judge
4 from outside the Eastern District of California.
5

Case management difficulties, including trial setting and interruption, are avoided if the

6 parties consent to conduct of further proceedings by a U.S. Magistrate Judge.

This Court

7 recognizes that Defendants have filed a decline to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction. However, given
8 the gravity of Judge O’Neill’s inability to commit to trials, Defendants are encouraged to
9 reconsider Magistrate Judge consent.1
10
11
12

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

13

/s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill

July 26, 2013

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
14
15

DEAC_Signature-END:

b9ed48bb

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1

Plaintiff filed consents to U.S. Magistrate Judge jurisdiction on May 13, 2013 and May 28, 2013 in response to the
court’s second scheduling order, in which the parties were directed to either consent to or decline U.S. Magistrate
Judge jurisdiction. (Docs. 86, 89.)

2