Coronado v. Neish et al

Filing 57

ORDER CONTINUING TRIAL signed by Chief Judge Morrison C. England, Jr on 6/29/15. IT IS ORDERED that the Jury Trial and Final Pretrial Conference are VACATED and both haerings will be reset in a forthcoming order. Accordingly, the 37 25 26 [27 ] 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 Motions in Limine are VACATED and DENIED AS MOOT. The Motions as filed will be considered at the rescheduled Final Pretrial Conference. The parties are encouraged to consider consenting to a jury or nonjury trial before the assigned Magistrate Judge as well as availing themselves of the Court's Alternative Dispute Resolution programs. (Meuleman, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

COREY CORONADO,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

No. 2:11-cv-00751-MCE-DAD

v.

ORDER CONTINUING TRIAL

CONSTANCE NEISH, ET AL.,

15

Defendants.

16
Due to the Court’s high caseload and on the Court’s own motion, the

17
18

July 9, 2015, Final Pretrial Conference and August 10, 2015, Jury Trial are vacated and

19

both hearings will be reset in a forthcoming order. Accordingly, the Motions in Limine

20

(ECF Nos. 25-27 and 29-37) are vacated and denied as moot. The Motions as filed will

21

be considered at the rescheduled Final Pretrial Conference.

22

///

23

///

24

///

25

///

26

///

27

///

28

///
1

1

The parties are encouraged to consider consenting to a jury or nonjury trial before

2

the assigned Magistrate Judge1 as well as availing themselves of the Court’s Alternative

3

Dispute Resolution programs.2 See E.D. Cal. Local Rs. 171, 301.

4
5

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: June 29, 2015

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

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.

23
24
25
26
27
28

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