Johnson et al v. City of Atwater et al

Filing 34


Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 10 RICHARD DEAN JOHNSON, AND LORI JOHNSON, Plaintiffs, 11 vs. 12 13 No. 1:16-cv-01636-AWI-SAB ORDER DENYING STIPULATION REQUESTING MODIFICATION OF SCHEDULING ORDER AS TO FILING DATE OF DISPOSITIVE MOTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE CITY OF ATWATER, et al., 14 Defendants. (ECF No. 33) 15 16 17 On January 13, 2016, the scheduling order issued in this action. (AR 9.) Pursuant to 18 the scheduling order, dispositive motions shall be filed by November 15, 2017; the pretrial 19 conference is set for January 24, 2018; and the trial is set for March 20, 2018. (Id.) On 20 October 27, 2017, the parties filed a stipulation to modify the date by which dispositive 21 motions shall be filed and heard in this action. (ECF No. 33.) The parties seek to extend the 22 dispositive motion deadline to December 18, 2017, with a hearing to likely be held on January 23 22, 2018. (Id.) 24 The deadlines proposed in the scheduling order do not provide sufficient time between 25 the proposed dates and the pretrial conference to allow the court to hear and decide any 26 dispositive motions. The parties are advised that pursuant to the Local Rules the hearing a 27 motion is to be noticed not less than twenty-eight days after service and filing of the motion. 28 L.R. 230(b). The proposed schedule does not allow the district judge sufficient to time to hear 1 the motion and issue an order addressing the motion prior to the pretrial conference. In order to 2 allow consideration of the motion and for the parties to have time to file a meaningful pretrial 3 statement, the proposed schedule should allow ten weeks between the motion filing deadline 4 and the pretrial conference. Therefore, the stipulation to amend the scheduling order shall be 5 denied. 6 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), to the parties who have not consented to conduct all further 7 proceedings in this case, including trial, before United States Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone, 8 you should be informed that because of the pressing workload of United States district judges and 9 the priority of criminal cases under the United States Constitution, you are encouraged to consent to 10 magistrate judge jurisdiction in an effort to have your case adjudicated in a timely and cost effective 11 manner. The parties are advised that they are free to withhold consent or decline magistrate 12 jurisdiction without adverse substantive consequences. Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the parties’ stipulation to 13 14 amend the January 13, 2017 scheduling order is DENIED without prejudice. 15 16 17 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: October 30, 2017 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?