Garrett et al v. City of Vallejo et al

Filing 59

ORDER signed by Chief Judge Morrison C. England, Jr on 7/28/14 CONTINUING Jury Trial to 3/9/2015 at 09:00 AM in Courtroom 7 (MCE) before Chief Judge Morrison C. England Jr.; any evidentiary or procedural motions filed by 1/2/2015, oppositions due b y 1/8/2015, responses due 1/15/15. Final Pretrial Conference RESET for 1/22/2015 at 02:00 PM in Courtroom 7 (MCE) before Chief Judge Morrison C. England Jr. Due to the Court's high civil caseload, the parties are encouraged to consider consenting to a jury or nonjury trial before the assigned Magistrate Judge1 as well as availing themselves of the Court's Alternative Dispute Resolution programs. See E.D. Cal. Local Rs. 171, 301. (Meuleman, A)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 GEORGIA MAE GARRETT, 12 Plaintiffs, 13 14 No. 2:05-cv-00387-MCE-DAD v. ORDER CONTINUING TRIAL CITY OF VALLEJO, 15 Defendants. 16 YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED the jury trial is vacated and continued to March 9, 17 18 2015, at 9:00 a.m. in Courtroom 7. The parties shall file trial briefs not later than 19 January 8, 2015. Counsel are directed to Local Rule 285 regarding the content of trial 20 briefs. Accordingly, the October 16, 2014 Final Pretrial Conference is vacated and 21 22 continued to January 22, 2015, at 2:00 p.m. in Courtroom 7. The Joint Final Pretrial 23 Statement is due not later than January 2, 2015 and shall comply with the procedures 24 outlined in the Court’s Pretrial Scheduling Order. The personal appearances of the trial 25 attorneys or person(s) in pro se is mandatory for the Final Pretrial Conference. 26 Telephonic appearances for this hearing are not permitted. 27 /// 28 /// 1 1 Any evidentiary or procedural motions are to be filed by January 2, 2015. 2 Oppositions must be filed by January 8, 2015 and any reply must be filed by January 3 15, 2015. The motions will be heard by the Court at the same time as the Final Pretrial 4 Conference. 5 Due to the Court’s high civil caseload, the parties are encouraged to consider 6 consenting to a jury or nonjury trial before the assigned Magistrate Judge1 as well as 7 availing themselves of the Court’s Alternative Dispute Resolution programs.2 See E.D. 8 Cal. Local Rs. 171, 301. 9 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: July 28, 2014 11 __________ __________ ___________ __________ ____ MORRISON C. ENGL N LAND, JR, C CHIEF JUDG GE UNITED ST TATES DIS STRICT COU URT 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 The Eastern District of California has for years been one of the busiest District Courts in the nation. The parties are reminded that pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 73 and Local Rule 301, the parties may consent to a jury or nonjury trial before the assigned Magistrate Judge. As a result of the Court’s high civil case load and the statutory right to a speedy trial in criminal cases, the parties are encouraged to consider the advantages of consenting to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction. Magistrate Judges can assign civil litigants a trial date much sooner and with more certainty than District Court Judges. In addition, since Magistrate Judges do not try felony cases, a trial date assigned by one can be considered a firm date which will not be preempted by a criminal case. Exercise of this jurisdiction by a Magistrate Judge is however, permitted only if all parties file a voluntarily consent form. Parties may, without adverse substantive consequences, withhold their consent, but this will prevent the Court's case dispositive jurisdiction from being exercised by a Magistrate Judge. 2 The Court may, at the election of all the parties, refer certain actions to the Voluntary Dispute Resolution Program ("VDRP"). If the parties believe that participation in a mediation and/or a settlement conference with a Magistrate Judge would be beneficial, they are encouraged to contact the Court's Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) Division, in writing, at the address or email address below: ADR Division, Attention: Sujean Park, U.S. District Court, 501 I Street, Suite 4-200, Sacramento, CA 95814, email: Alternatively, the parties may request referral to the VDRP by filing a Stipulation and Proposed Order reflecting the agreement of all parties to submit the action to the VDRP pursuant to Local Rule 271. Should the parties reach a settlement or otherwise resolve their case by agreement of the parties, they are reminded that it is the duty of counsel to immediately file a notice of settlement or resolution as set forth in Local Rule 160. 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?