Lopez v. Florez et al

Filing 189

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 7/26/2013. (Marrujo, C)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

ANDREW LOPEZ,
Plaintiff,

11
12

v.

13

Case No. 1:08-cv-01975-LJO-JLT (PC)
NOTICE TO PARTIES REGARDING
IMPACTED TRIAL CALENDAR AND
AVAILABILITY OF CONSENT TO U.S.
MAGISTRATE JUDGE JURISDICTION

FLOREZ, et al.,
Defendants.

14
15

_____________________________________/

16
17

This matter is currently set before U.S. District Judge Lawrence J. O’Neill, and the parties

18 have declined to consent to U.S. Magistrate Judge jurisdiction. The parties are hereby notified of
19 the following regarding Judge O’Neill’s impacted trial calendar and its potential effect on their
20 future trial date.
21

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

22 this Court is unable to devote inordinate time and resources to individual cases and matters. Judge
23 O’Neill must adhere to strict scheduling to best manage his burdensome caseload approaching
24 2,000 cases.
25

Civil trials set before Judge O'Neill trail until he becomes available and are subject to

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

1 than 24 hours notice. Moreover, this Court’s Fresno Division randomly and without advance
2 notice reassigns civil actions to U.S. District Judges throughout the nation to serve as visiting
3 judges. In the absence of Magistrate Judge consent, this action is subject to reassignment to a U.S.
4 District Judge 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 both parties elected to decline the Magistrate Judge’s jurisdiction. However, given
8 the gravity of Judge O’Neill’s inability to commit to trials, the parties are encouraged to reconsider
9 Magistrate Judge consent.
10
11
12
13

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

14

/s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill

July 26, 2013

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
15
16

DEAC_Signature-END:

b9ed48bb

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2