Anderson et al v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company et al

Filing 100

ORDER vacating the March 17, 2016, Final Pretrial Conference and the May 2, 2016, Jury trial. Signed by Chief Judge Morrison C. England, Jr. on 3/14/2016. (Deutsch, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

DONALD ANDERSON, et al.,

12

Plaintiffs,

13
14

No. 2:12-cv-01057-MCE-EFB

v.

ORDER CONTINUING TRIAL

CENTURY SURETY COMPANY, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that, due to the Court’s current unavailability for a

17
18

thirty-five (35) day trial, the May 2, 2016, trial is VACATED. Not later than five (5) days

19

following the date this Order is electronically filed, the parties are directed to file a joint

20

statement advising the Court as to which of the Court’s available civil law and motion

21

dates are mutually agreeable for counsel so that the Court may confirm the Final Pretrial

22

Conference in this case. In that statement, the parties are further directed to confirm the

23

number of days they anticipate it will require to try this case. Accordingly, the March 17,

24

2016, Final Pretrial Conference is VACATED.

25

///

26

///

27

///

28

///
1

1

At the same time, due to the Court’s high civil caseload and heavy criminal

2

calendar, the parties are strongly encouraged to consider consenting to a jury or nonjury

3

trial before the assigned Magistrate Judge.1

4
5

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: March 14, 2016

6
__________
__________
___________
__________
____
MORRISON C. ENGL
N
LAND, JR, C
CHIEF JUDG
GE
UNITED ST
TATES DIS
STRICT COU
URT

7
8
9
10
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,
they 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 (which may happen even once trial is already underway).
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