Tandel v. County of Sacramento, et al

Filing 172

ORDER signed by Chief Judge Morrison C. England, Jr on 6/18/15 ORDERING that Jury Trial is COTNINUED from 9/8/15 to 2/26/2016 at 09:00 AM in Courtroom 7 (MCE) before Chief Judge Morrison C. England Jr. The parties shall file trial briefs not later t han 12/3/15. The Final Pretrial Conference is CONTINUED from 7/30/15 to 12/17/2015 at 02:00 PM in Courtroom 7 (MCE) before Chief Judge Morrison C. England Jr. The Joint Final Pretrial Statement is due not later than 11/19/15. Any Evidentiary or procedural Motions are to be filed by 11/19/2015. Oppositions must be filed by 12/3/15 and any reply must be filed by 12/10/15. The Motions will be heard by the Court at the same time as the Final Pretrial Conference.(Mena-Sanchez, L)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

SANDIPKUMAR TANDEL,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

No. 2:11-cv-00353-MCE-AC

v.

ORDER CONTINUING TRIAL

COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, ET AL.,

15

Defendant.

16
YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED the September 8, 2015, jury trial is vacated and

17
18

continued to February 26, 2016, at 9:00 a.m., in Courtroom 7. The parties shall file trial

19

briefs not later than December 3, 2015. Counsel are directed to Local Rule 285

20

regarding the content of trial briefs.
Accordingly, the July 30, 2015, Final Pretrial Conference is vacated and

21
22

continued to December 17, 2015, at 2:00 p.m., in Courtroom 7. The Joint Final Pretrial

23

Statement is due not later than November 19, 2015 and shall comply with the

24

procedures outlined in the Court’s Pretrial Scheduling Order. The personal appearances

25

of the trial 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 November 19, 2015.

2

Oppositions must be filed by December 3, 2015 and any reply must be filed by

3

December 10, 2015. The motions will be heard by the Court at the same time as the

4

Final Pretrial 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: June 18, 2015

11
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