Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-02100/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-02100-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 290
Nature of Suit: Other Real Property Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1331(a) Fed. Question: Real Property

---

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

FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTGAGE 

CORPORATION,, 

Plaintiff,

v.

GUADALUPE M. GONZALEZ, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CASE NO: 1:13-cv-02100 AWI JLT

ORDER TO PLAINTIFF TO FILE STATUS 

REPORT RE: SERVICE TO UNKNOWN 

DEFENDANTS OR TO FILE PROOF OF 

SERVICE AS TO THESE DEFENDANTS

ORDER CONTINUING SCHEDULING 

CONFERENCE

ORDER TO PLAINTIFF TO FILE ITS 

CONSENT OR DECLINE TO MAGISTRATE 

JUDGE JURISDICTION WITHIN 10 DAYS

On December 27, 2013, Plaintiff initiated this declaratory relief action, in short, to quiet title held 

by Plaintiff as to certain real property. (Doc. 2 at 8-9) Plaintiff has obtained entry of default as to all 

named and known Defendants and is lacking entry of default only as to the “Unknown Defendants.” 

(Docs. 9, 22) Because the identities and locations of the Unknown Defendants were not ascertainable, 

on March 6, 2014, the Court ordered notice to these Defendants via publication that would run for four 

weeks. (Doc. 21) Since this time, Plaintiffs have not filed proof of service as to these Unknown 

Defendants and, consequently, have not sought entry of default. Thus, the Court will require Plaintiff to 

file a status report or proof of service within 14 days.

In addition, because it does not appear that the matter is amenable to a scheduling conference at 

Case 1:13-cv-02100-AWI-JLT Document 24 Filed 05/14/14 Page 1 of 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

this time, the Court will continue the scheduling conference.

Finally, out of fairness, Plaintiff is advised 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. 

Plaintiff is 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. § 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 United States 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. 

Therefore, Plaintiff is directed to consider consenting to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction to conduct 

all further proceedings, including trial and will be required to provide their consent or decline within 10 

Case 1:13-cv-02100-AWI-JLT Document 24 Filed 05/14/14 Page 2 of 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

days.

ORDER

Based upon the foregoing, the Court ORDERS:

1. No later than May 29, 2014, Plaintiff SHALL file a status report re: service or process to 

the Unknown Defendants or its proof of service related to these Defendants;

2. The scheduling conference, currently set on May 22, 2014 is CONTINUED to August 

18, 2014 at 9:00 a.m;

3. 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.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 14, 2014 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-02100-AWI-JLT Document 24 Filed 05/14/14 Page 3 of 3