National Railroad Passenger Corp v. Camargo Trucking, et al.

Filing 26

ORDER Directing Plaintiffs to Return Consent Forms, signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 1/8/2013. (The Remaining Passenger Plaintiffs are ORDERED to affirmatively indicate whether they consent to or decline the jurisdiction of the U.S. Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (C) by completing and filing the consent form attached at 1:12-cv-775 AWI-BAM, Docket Entry 6, with the Clerks Office no later than 1/21/2013.) (Gaumnitz, R)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER
7 CORPORATION,
8
9

Plaintiff,
v.

10 CAMARGO TRUCKING, et al.,
11

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

1:12-cv-775 AWI-BAM
ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFFS TO
RETURN CONSENT FORMS

Defendants.

12 _____________________________________
13
14

On January 7, 2012, the Court granted National Railroad Passenger Corporation and BNSF

15 Railway Company’s Motions to Consolidate action numbers 1:12-cv-775 AWI-BAM, with action
16 numbers 1:12-cv-1234 AWI-BAM, 1:12-cv-1359 AWI-BAM, 1:12-cv-1554 AWI-BAM, 1:12-cv17 1576 AWI-BAM, and 1:12-cv-1923 AWI-BAM, all arising from the same train accident. Prior to that
18 date, parties National Railroad Passenger Corporation, BNSF Railway Company, Luis Camargo, and
19 Joyce Soriano-McDowell filed a consent to jurisdiction of the United States Magistrate Judge Barbara
20 A. McAuliffe for all purposes, including trial. Plaintiffs Marc Alexander Bennett, Billy Gene Olveda,
21 Sabrina Combs and Rubiela Behrens (“Remaining Passenger Plaintiffs”) have not yet affirmatively
22 indicated whether they consent to or decline magistrate judge jurisdiction. Accordingly, the
23 Remaining Passenger Plaintiffs are ORDERED to affirmatively indicate whether they consent to or
24 decline the jurisdiction of the U.S. Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (C) by completing
25 and filing the consent form attached at 1:12-cv-775 AWI-BAM, Docket Entry 6, with the Clerk’s
26 Office no later than January 21, 2013.
27

Due to the overwhelming caseload already assigned to the two U.S. District Judges in this

28 division–more than twice the national average for District Judges–Plaintiffs are strongly encouraged

1

1 to consider consenting to the jurisdiction of the U.S. Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(C)
2 for all purposes including trial and entry of Judgment. Consent to a Magistrate Judge does not, in any
3 way, affect a party’s legal rights, including the right to a jury trial. Plaintiffs are advised that there
4 will be no adverse substantive consequences if they choose not to consent as provided by
5 FED .R.CIV .P. 73(b)(2).
6
7
8

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
10c20k

January 8, 2013

/s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2