Opinion
2:23-cv-00311-DAD-KJN
10-06-2023
RAMON QUESADA, Plaintiff, v. MARTEN TRANSPORT, LTD., et al., Defendants.
ORDER REFERRING MOTIONS TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE
DALE A. DROZD, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
The Eastern District of California's overwhelming caseload has been well publicized, and the long-standing lack of adequate judicial resources in this district long ago reached crisis proportions. This crisis continues to have serious implications for this court and litigants appearing before it.
The undersigned has endeavored to work through a backlog of inherited submitted motions in civil cases as quickly as possible since returning to the Sacramento courthouse just over one year ago. However, that effort has resulted in less of the court's limited resources being devoted to resolving motions that have been filed within the last year-many of which were reluctantly taken under submission without oral argument despite the undersigned's preference for holding hearings on civil law and motion matters.
In light of the foregoing, the undersigned has decided to refer the pending motions to dismiss (Doc. Nos. 25, 28, 29, 30) in this case to the assigned magistrate judge for the issuance of findings and recommendations, if necessary.
However, the court urges the parties to consider several available alternatives.
First, if the parties believe that an early settlement conference with a magistrate judge might be productive in the case, they are encouraged to promptly file a stipulation requesting that the case be set for a court-supervised settlement conference.
Second, the parties are reminded of their option to consent to proceeding before a magistrate judge for all purposes. Any party that has not already filed a “Consent/Decline of U.S. Magistrate Judge Jurisdiction Form” shall do so promptly. When completing the form, please specify which party or parties are completing the form. “Our Magistrate Judges play a critical role in providing essential access to justice, particularly in our overburdened court.” (Doc. No. 74-2 at 2.) Indeed, “[c]onsenting to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction in civil cases may represent one of the best ways to secure ‘just, speedy, and inexpensive determination' of your case, which is why we want to be sure you are fully aware of your right and ability to consent.” (Id.) (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 1).
Third, even if the parties are not inclined to consent to magistrate judge jurisdiction over their entire case, the parties should consider whether they are interested in a partial/limited consent. For example, the parties may consent to the magistrate judge jurisdiction for purposes of ruling on a particular motion/request that would ordinarily be resolved by the assigned district judge. If the parties are willing to agree to such limited consent as to the pending motions to dismiss (Doc. Nos. 25, 28, 29, 30), they shall file a joint notice so informing the court as soon as possible so that judicial resources can be efficiently allocated.
If the parties reject all of these listed alternatives, then within fourteen (14) days from the date of this order, the parties shall file a joint notice simply informing the court that the parties have not all agreed on any of these alternatives. Upon receipt of the parties' joint notice, or upon the expiration of the fourteen-day period, whichever occurs first, the pending motions to dismiss (Doc. Nos. 25, 28, 29, 30) are hereby referred to the assigned magistrate judge for the issuance of findings and recommendations, so as not to require another separate referral order.
In their notice, the parties shall not specify the respective positions of each party as to each alternative. The court need only be notified that the parties have not all agreed on any of the listed alternatives.
IT IS SO ORDERED.