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.

Flores v. FCA U.S. LLC

United States District Court, E.D. California

May 17, 2017

JULIAN III FLORES, et al., Plaintiffs,
v.
FCA U.S. LLC, Defendant.

          SCHEDULING ORDER (FED. R. CIV. P. 16)

          JENNIFER L. THURSTON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.

         I. Date of Scheduling Conference

         May 17, 2017.

         II. Appearances of Counsel

         Alastair Hamblin appeared on behalf of Plaintiff.

         Kristi Livedalen appeared on behalf of Defendant.

         III. Magistrate Judge Consent:

         Notice of Congested Docket and Court Policy of Trailing

         Due to the District Judges' heavy caseload, the newly adopted policy of the Fresno Division of the Eastern District is to trail all civil cases. The parties are hereby notified that for a trial date set before a District Judge, the parties will trail indefinitely behind any higher priority criminal or older civil case set on the same date until a courtroom becomes available. The trial date will not be reset to a continued date.

         The Magistrate Judges' availability is far more realistic and accommodating to parties than that of the U.S. District Judges who carry the heaviest caseloads in the nation and who must prioritize criminal and older civil cases over more recently filed civil cases. A United States Magistrate Judge may 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. Any appeal from a judgment entered by a United States Magistrate Judge is taken directly to the United States Court of Appeal for the Ninth Circuit.

         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, such 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.

         Therefore, the parties are directed to consider consenting to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction to conduct all further proceedings, including trial. Within 10 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. Motion to Remand

         Any motion to remand by Plaintiff SHALL be filed by June 5, 2017, and set before the Honorable Dale A. Drozd, United States District Court Judge.

         V. Pleading Amendment Deadline

         Any requested pleading amendments are ordered to be filed, either through a stipulation or motion to amend, no later than August 14, 2017. Any motion to amend the pleadings shall be heard by the Honorable Dale A. Drozd, United States District Court Judge.

         VI. 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 May 19, 2017.

         The parties are ordered to complete all discovery pertaining to non-experts on or before March 23, 2018 and all discovery pertaining to experts on or before June 11, 2018.

         Counsel SHALL take the depositions of relevant witnesses in each of the related cases only one time unless both sides agree to deviate. If the deponent will offer testimony as to the unique facts of more than one of the related cases, the party taking the deposition will be entitled to extend the deposition beyond seven hours. However, counsel SHALL meet in advance to come to agreement as to how much additional time will be permitted.

         The parties are directed to disclose all expert witnesses[1] in writing on or before April 9, 2018, and to disclose all rebuttal experts on or before May 14, 2018. The written designation of retained and non-retained experts shall be made pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. Rule 26(a)(2), (A), (B), and (C) and shall include all information required thereunder. Failure to designate experts in compliance with this order may result in the ...


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.