Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_12-cv-01057/USCOURTS-caed-2_12-cv-01057-9/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 110
Nature of Suit: Insurance
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Insurance Contract

---

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 

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

DONALD ANDERSON, et al., 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

CENTURY SURETY COMPANY, et al.,

Defendants. 

No. 2:12-cv-01057-MCE-EFB 

ORDER CONTINUING TRIAL 

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that, due to the Court’s current unavailability for a 

thirty-five (35) day trial, the May 2, 2016, trial is VACATED. Not later than five (5) days 

following the date this Order is electronically filed, the parties are directed to file a joint 

statement advising the Court as to which of the Court’s available civil law and motion 

dates are mutually agreeable for counsel so that the Court may confirm the Final Pretrial 

Conference in this case. In that statement, the parties are further directed to confirm the 

number of days they anticipate it will require to try this case. Accordingly, the March 17, 

2016, Final Pretrial Conference is VACATED. 

/// 

/// 

/// 

/// 

Case 2:12-cv-01057-MCE-DB Document 100 Filed 03/14/16 Page 1 of 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 

2

At the same time, due to the Court’s high civil caseload and heavy criminal 

calendar, the parties are strongly encouraged to consider consenting to a jury or nonjury 

trial before the assigned Magistrate Judge.1 

 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: March 14, 2016 

 1

 The Eastern District of California has for years been one of the busiest District Courts in the 

nation. The parties are reminded that pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 73 and Local Rule 301, 

they may consent to a jury or nonjury trial before the assigned Magistrate Judge. As a result of the Court’s 

high civil case load and the statutory right to a speedy trial in criminal cases, the parties are encouraged to 

consider the advantages of consenting to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction. Magistrate Judges can assign 

civil litigants a trial date much sooner and with more certainty than District Court Judges. In addition, since 

Magistrate Judges do not try felony cases, a trial date assigned by one can be considered a firm date 

which will not be preempted by a criminal case (which may happen even once trial is already underway). 

Exercise of this jurisdiction by a Magistrate Judge is however, permitted only if all parties file a voluntarily 

consent form. Parties may, without adverse substantive consequences, withhold their consent, but this 

will prevent the Court's case dispositive jurisdiction from being exercised by a Magistrate Judge. 

Case 2:12-cv-01057-MCE-DB Document 100 Filed 03/14/16 Page 2 of 2