Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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

Galindo v. ABS Global, Inc.

United States District Court, E.D. California

July 19, 2016

SERGIO GALINDO, Plaintiff,
v.
ABS GLOBAL, INC., et al., Defendants.

          AMENDED SCHEDULING ORDER (Fed. R. Civ. P. 16)

          Jennifer L. Thurston United States Magistrate Judge

         Pleading Amendment Deadline: 10/17/2016 Discovery Deadlines:

         Initial Disclosures: 8/8/2016 Non-Expert: 5/26/2017 Expert: 8/4/2017 Mid-Discovery Status Conference: 3/7/2017 at 8:30 a.m.

         Non-Dispositive Motion Deadlines: Filing: 8/18/2017 Hearing: 9/15/2017 Dispositive Motion Deadlines: Filing: 9/29/2017 Hearing: 11/13/2017 Settlement Conference:

         12/19/2016 at 1:30 p.m.

         510 19th Street, Bakersfield, CA Pre-Trial Conference:

         1/10/2018 at 10:00 a.m. Courtroom 2 Trial: 3/6/2018 at 8:30 a.m. Courtroom 2 Jury trial: 5-7 days

         I. Date of Scheduling Conference

         July 18, 2016.

         II. Appearances of Counsel

         Randall Rumph appeared on behalf of Plaintiff.

         Tyler Paetkau appeared on behalf of Defendant ABS Global, Inc.

         James Braze appeared on behalf of Defendant Pro Vita Animal Health, LLC.

         III. Information Concerning the Court’s Schedule

         Out of fairness, the Court believes it is necessary to forewarn litigants that the Fresno Division of the Eastern District of California now has the heaviest District Court Judge caseload in the entire nation. While the Court will use its best efforts to resolve this case and all other civil cases in a timely manner, the parties are admonished that not all of the parties’ needs and expectations may be met as expeditiously as desired. As multiple trials are now being set to begin upon the same date, parties may find their case trailing with little notice before the trial begins. The law requires that the Court give any criminal trial priority over civil trials or any other matter. The Court must proceed with a criminal trial even if a civil trial was filed earlier and set for trial first. Continuances of any civil trial under these circumstances will no longer be entertained, absent a specific and stated finding of good cause. All parties should be informed that any civil trial set to begin during the time a criminal trial is proceeding will trail the completion of the criminal trial.

         The parties are reminded of the availability of a United States Magistrate Judge to conduct all proceedings in this action. A United States Magistrate Judge is available to conduct trials, 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 both United States Magistrate Judges and United States District Court Judges. Any appeal from a judgment entered by a Magistrate Judge is taken directly to the United States Court of Appeal for the Ninth Circuit. However, the parties are hereby informed that no substantive rulings or decisions will be affected by whether a party chooses to consent.

         Finally, the Fresno Division of the Eastern District of California, whenever possible, is utilizing United States Article III District Court Judges from throughout the nation as Visiting Judges. Pursuant to the Local Rules, Appendix A, reassignments will be random, and the parties will receive no advance notice before their case is reassigned to an Article III District Court Judge from outside of the Eastern District of California.

         Plaintiff consented to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction on the record during the Scheduling Conference. Defendants are directed to consider consenting to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction to conduct all further proceedings, including trial. Within 21 days of the date of this order, counsel SHALL file a consent/decline form (provided by the Court at the inception of this case) indicating whether they will consent to the jurisdiction of the Magistrate Judge.

         IV. Pleading Amendment Deadline

         Any requested pleading amendments are ordered to be filed, either through a stipulation or motion to amend, no later than October 17, 2016.

         V. Discovery Plan and Cut-Off Date

         The parties are ordered to exchange the initial disclosures required by Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(a)(1) on or before August 8, 2016.

         The parties are ordered to complete all discovery pertaining to non-experts on or before May 26, 2017, and all discovery ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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