Campbell et al v. Hoffman et al

Filing 80

ORDER by Magistrate Judge Kevin R. Sweazea regarding 66 Unopposed Motion to Vacate Jury Trial and all Pending Deadlines. (atc)

Case 1:21-cv-00615-DHU-KRS Document 80 Filed 01/17/23 Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
CHANTELLE CAMPBELL, and
NATHANIEL CAMPBELL,
Plaintiffs,
v.

Case No. 1:21-615 DHU/KRS

JAMES EDWARD HOFFMAN, and
US EXPRESS LOGISTICS III, LLC,
Defendants.
ORDER FINDING AS MOOT MOTION TO VACATE JURY TRIAL
AND DENYING MOTION TO VACATE ALL PENDING DEADLINES
THIS MATTER is before the Court on the parties’ Unopposed Motion to Vacate Jury
Trial and all Pending Deadlines, (Doc. 66), filed December 9, 2022. In the Motion, the parties
request a new trial date and to vacate the deadlines in the presiding judge’s Amended Trial
Notice, (Doc. 55). See (Doc. 66) at 1-2. On January 3, 2023, the presiding judge issued an
Amended Trial Notice, resetting the trial from August 7, 2023, to December 4, 2023, and
resetting all trial-related deadlines. (Doc. 74). Accordingly, the parties’ requests for a new trial
date and trial deadlines are now moot.
The current pretrial deadlines are set in the Amended Scheduling Order, (Doc. 56), which
sets the termination of discovery on February 10, 2023. If the parties seek an extension of these
pretrial deadlines, they must file a motion that specifies their proposed deadlines. The Court will
not enter an order vacating the pretrial deadlines – the parties must propose new deadlines to be
set in place of the current deadlines. Until such a motion is ruled on, the pretrial deadlines are
governed by the Amended Scheduling Order, (Doc. 56), and the parties are expected to meet
those deadlines. Additionally, the Court notes that this case was set on a 210-day scheduling

Case 1:21-cv-00615-DHU-KRS Document 80 Filed 01/17/23 Page 2 of 2

track at the Rule 16 scheduling conference on March 10, 2022, and those deadlines have already
been amended once and the trial has been reset twice. See (Docs. 43, 48, 55, 56, and 74). The
Court will consider this history in connection with further motions for extension, and will not
grant an extension that will affect the presiding judge’s trial settings.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the parties’ Unopposed Motion to Vacate Jury Trial
and all Pending Deadlines, (Doc. 66), is DENIED AS MOOT as to the trial setting and trialrelated deadlines. The Motion is DENIED without prejudice to the extent the parties are asking
to vacate the scheduling order deadlines, and may be refiled in accordance with the parameters
set forth above.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
__________________________________
KEVIN R. SWEAZEA
UNITED STAGES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2