Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Locke v. County of Sacramento

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


February 13, 2009

JAMES LOCKE, PLAINTIFF,
v.
COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO; JUDICIAL COUNCIL OF CALIFORNIA ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE COURTS; SACRAMENTO SUPERIOR COURT FAMILY LAW AND PROBATE DIRECTOR OF OPERATIONS JULIE SETZER; SACRAMENTO SUPERIOR COURT DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER JAKE CHATTERS; SACRAMENTO SUPERIOR COURT CHIEF DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER EDWARD POLLARD; AND SACRAMENTO SUPERIOR COURT EXECUTIVE OFFICER DENNIS JONES; AND DOES 1 TO 10, DEFENDANTS.
JAMES LOCKE, PLAINTIFF,
v.
JULIE SETZER, JAKE CHATTERS, EDWARD POLLARD, AND DENNIS JONES, DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Garland E. Burrell, Jr. United States District Judge

RELATED CASE ORDER AND SCHEDULING ORDER IN SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA

Examination of the above-entitled actions reveals the actions are related within the meaning of Local Rule 83-123(a) since the actions are based on the same or similar claims, and involve similar questions of fact and law. Accordingly, having the same judge and magistrate judge assigned to each action is likely to effect a substantial savings of judicial effort. I therefore reassign the actions as stated below.

The parties should be aware that relating the actions merely results in the actions being assigned to the same judge and magistrate judge; no consolidation of the actions is effected. Under the regular practice of this court, related cases are generally assigned to the district judge and magistrate judge to whom the first filed action was assigned. This practice is followed as to the assigned magistrate judge but is not followed as to the assigned district judge; I have made the related case determination since the district judge to whom the first filed action was assigned has recused himself from the second filed action. Accordingly, the caption on documents filed in both cases shall show the initials "GEB-GGH" next to the action number to reflect the reassignments.

The Clerk of the Court shall make appropriate adjustment in the assignment of civil cases to compensate for these reassignments.

Further, the stay imposed in action 2:08-CV-00737-GEB-GGH is lifted. A status conference is scheduled in action 2:08-CV-00737-GEBGGH to commence at 9:00 a.m. on April 27, 2009, and a Joint Status Report shall be filed no later than fourteen (14) days before the status conference. The Clerk's Office shall issue my Order Setting Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Conference in accordance with this Order.

20090213

© 1992-2009 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.