Opinion
ORDER TO VACATE HEARING AND PRETRIAL CONFERENCE AND TO SET BRIEFING (Docs. 69, 70.)
LAWRENCE J. O'NEILL, District Judge.
On August 29, 2013, plaintiffs filed their summary judgment papers (doc. 69) and set a September 26, 2013 hearing. On August 30, 2013, defendant filed its summary judgment papers (docs. 70-72) and set a hearing for October 10, 2013, the same set for the pretrial conference. Trial is set for December 10, 2013.
Unfortunately, in the absence of consent to one this Court's U.S. Magistrate Judges, this Court is unable to commit to adhere to the dates currently set. This Court's Fresno Division carries the heaviest U.S. District Judge caseload in the nation. Although this Court uses its best efforts to resolve civil cases timely, this Court is unable to meet the parties' needs and expectations, especially given the current schedule.
This Court cannot conduct an October 10, 2013 pretrial conference with the pending summary judgment motions. This Court requires complete submission of summary judgment papers no less than 45 days prior to the pretrial conference. In short, the compacted schedule precludes this Court to commit to the currently set dates.
Moreover, multiple trials are set before Judge O'Neill on December 10, 2013. As such, if this Court is able to rule on the summary judgment motions in sufficient time prior to the December 10, 2013 trial, there is a high probability that trial in this case will trail until Judge O'Neill becomes available. As required by law, this Court gives criminal cases priority over civil trials and other matters. This Court must proceed with criminal trials even if a civil action is older or its trial was set earlier. Continuances of civil trials under these circumstances will no longer be entertained, absent absolute good cause. Moreover, trial in this civil action is subject to suspension mid-trial to accommodate criminal cases.
One of this Court's U.S. Magistrate Judges is available to conduct all proceedings in this action, including entry of final judgment, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 73, and Local Rule 305. The same jury pool is used by Magistrate Judges and District Judges. An appeal from Magistrate Judge proceedings is taken directly to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals when the parties consent to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction.
Lastly, this Court's Fresno Division randomly and without advance notice reassigns civil actions to District Judges throughout the nation to serve as visiting judges. In the absence of Magistrate Judge consent, this action is subject to reassignment to a District Judge from outside the Eastern District of California. Case management difficulties, including trial setting and interruption, are avoided if the parties consent to conduct of further proceedings by one of this Court's Magistrate Judges.
As such, and on the basis of good cause, this Court:
1. VACATES the September 26, 2013 and October 10, 2013 summary judgment hearings;
2. ORDERS the parties, no later than September 26, 2013, to file and serve respective opposition papers;
3. ORDERS the parties, no later than October 3, 2010, to file and serve respective reply papers;
4. VACATES the October 10, 2013 pretrial conference which will be reset based on the outcome and timing of the summary judgment rulings; and
5. ORDERS the parties to consider, and if necessary reconsider, consent to the conduct of all further proceedings by one of this Court's Magistrate Judges and to file, no later than September 10, 2013, papers to indicate whether the parties consent to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction. A form to do so is available on this Court's website.
If the parties do not consent to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction and there is no reassignment to a visiting District Judge, Judge O'Neill will rule on the summary judgment motions based on the record without a hearing. At this time, the December 10, 2013 trial will remain as set. The parties may contact attorney Gary Green at (559) 499-5683 to discuss the scheduling difficulties and options to better accommodate the parties.
IT IS SO ORDERED.