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)

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: [e-mail]. 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