Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00273/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00273-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 790
Nature of Suit: Other Labor Litigation
Cause of Action: 28:1446 Petition for Removal

---

1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

This Court conducted a preliminary scheduling conference on June 5, 2014 in the chambers of 

United States Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe. Counsel Kenneth Yoon and Stephanie Yasude 

appeared telephonically for Plaintiff. Counsel Donna Mezias and Liz Bertko appeared telephonically 

for Defendants. 

A. Consent To Magistrate Judge

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), the parties have not consented to conduct all further 

proceedings in this case, including trial, before the Honorable Barbara A. McAuliffe, United States 

Magistrate Judge.

District Court Judges of the Fresno Division of the Eastern District of California now have the 

heaviest caseload in the nation. As a result, each District Judge schedules multiple trials to begin on 

each available trial date. Civil cases will “trail” and begin as soon as a courtroom is cleared. The law 

requires that the Court give any criminal trial priority over civil trials or any other matter. A civil trial 

set to begin while a criminal trial is proceeding will trail the completion of the criminal trial. 

JAMES RICHARDSON,

 Plaintiff,

vs.

HOME DEPOT, U.S.A., INC. et al.,

Defendants.

_______________________________/

Case No. 1: 14-cv-00273-LJO-BAM

PRELIMINARY SCHEDULING ORDER

Case 1:14-cv-00273-BAM Document 10 Filed 06/09/14 Page 1 of 3
2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

The Court cannot give advance notice of which cases will trail or for how long because the 

Court does not know which cases actually will go to trial or precisely how long each will last. Once 

your trial date arrives, counsel, parties and witnesses must remain on 24 hour stand-by until a court 

opens. Since continuance to a date certain will simply postpone, but not solve, the problem, 

continuances of any civil trial under these circumstances will no longer be entertained, absent a 

specific and stated finding of good cause. The Court will use its best efforts to mitigate the effect of 

the foregoing and to resolve all cases in a timely manner. 

One alternative is for the parties to consent to a United States Magistrate Judge conducting all 

proceedings, including trial and entry of final judgment, pursuant to § 28 U.S.C. 636(c), Federal Rule 

of Civil Procedure 73, and Local Rule 305. The Eastern District Magistrate Judges, all experienced 

former trial lawyers, use the same jury pool and same court facilities as United States District Court 

Judges. Since Magistrate Judges do not conduct felony trials, they have greater flexibility and 

schedule firm trial dates. Judgment entered by a United States Magistrate Judge is appealable directly 

to the United States Court of Appeal for the Ninth Circuit. (While there are scheduling benefits to 

consenting to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction, substantive rulings and decisions will not be affected by 

whether a party chooses to consent or not.)

 As another response to its large caseload, the Fresno Division of the Eastern District of 

California is assigning cases, whenever possible, to Article III District Court Judges from around 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. 

B. Preliminary Class Certification Dates 

After discussion with counsel, the Court SETS the following dates for class certification only: 

1. Deadline to amend pleadings or file stipulated amendment: July 1, 2014;

2. Discovery cutoff for class certification issues (non-expert): January 30, 2015;

3. Expert disclosure: February 13, 2015;

4. Expert discovery cutoff: April 25, 2015;

5. Class certification motion filing deadline: March 13, 2015;

Case 1:14-cv-00273-BAM Document 10 Filed 06/09/14 Page 2 of 3
3

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

6. Class certification opposition: Six (6) weeks after opening 

brief;

7. Class Certification Reply: Three (3) weeks after 

opposition brief;

A hearing on Plaintiff’s motion for class certification will be held no earlier than two (2) weeks 

after the reply brief is filed. Plaintiff will account for this briefing schedule in noticing any motion for 

class certification. The hearing on Plaintiff’s motion for class certification will be in Courtroom 8, 

before United States Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe. 

The Court ADMONISHES the parties that any discovery relating to class certification must be 

conducted in a manner that will permit the parties to comply with these deadlines. The Court will not 

modify this scheduling order due to insufficient or outstanding discovery absent good cause. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 6, 2014 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-00273-BAM Document 10 Filed 06/09/14 Page 3 of 3