Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-02570/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-02570-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CAROL THERESA SMITH, )

) 2:03-cv-02570-GEB

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

) BIFURCATION

SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY SHERIFF’S )

SERGEANT WILLIAM DORCEY; and )

SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY SHERIFF’S )

DEPUTY MICHAEL VAN GROUW, )

) 

Defendants. )

)

Defendants’ Motion for Bifurcation, filed on September

27, 2005, is a matter that should have been filed prior to the law

and motion deadline established by the Status (Pretrial Scheduling)

Order. In addition, the Defendants’ motion discusses several

issues addressed by Section IX of the Final Pretrial Order (“FPO”). 

Any objection to Section IX should have been filed within the tenday objection period prescribed by Section XVI of the FPO. 

Therefore, the Defendants’ Motion for Bifurcation is

untimely. Accordingly, the motion is denied. See U.S. Dominator,

Inc. v. Factory Ship Robert E. Resoff, 768 F.2d 1099, 1104 (9th

Case 2:03-cv-02570-GEB -KJM Document 59 Filed 09/30/05 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

Cir. 1985) (affirming district court's denial of untimely motion

since "pretrial order controls the subsequent course of action

unless modified by a subsequent order"), rejected on other grounds,

Simpson v. Lear Astronics Corp., 77 F.3d 1170, 1174 (9th Cir.

1995). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: September 30, 2005

/s/ Garland E. Burrell, Jr.

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge 

Case 2:03-cv-02570-GEB -KJM Document 59 Filed 09/30/05 Page 2 of 2