United States of America v. Molen et al

Filing 195

ORDER CONTINUING TRIAL signed by Chief Judge Morrison C. England, Jr. on 12/10/2014. The Bench Trial is VACATED and CONTINUED to 4/20/2015 at 9:00 AM in Courtroom 7 (MCE). Parties shall file Trial Briefs no later than 3/5/2015. Final Pretrial Confere nce is VACATED and RE-SET for 3/19/2015 at 2:00 PM in Courtroom 7 (MCE). Parties shall file the Joint Final Pretrial Statement by 2/26/2005. Any Evidentiary or Procedural Motions shall be filed by 2/26/2015. Oppositions must be filed by 3/5/2015 and any Replies are due by 3/12/2015. Motions will be heard by Court at same time as Final Pretrial Conference. (Marciel, M)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, , 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 No. 2:10-cv-02591-MCE-KJN v. ORDER CONTINUING TRIAL JAMES MOLEN, ET AL. , 15 Defendant. 16 YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED the bench trial is vacated and continued to 17 18 April 20, 2015, at 9:00 a.m. in Courtroom 7. The parties shall file trial briefs not later 19 than March 5, 2015. Counsel are directed to Local Rule 285 regarding the content of 20 trial briefs. Accordingly, the January 8, 2015 Final Pretrial Conference is vacated and 21 22 continued to March 19, 2015, at 2:00 p.m. in Courtroom 7. The Joint Final Pretrial 23 Statement is due not later than February 26, 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 February 26, 2015. 2 Oppositions must be filed by March 5, 2015 and any reply must be filed by March 12, 3 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 Judge 1 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: December 10, 2014 11 12 _______________________________________ MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 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 24 25 26 27 28 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: spark@caed.uscourts.gov. 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?