Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-1_03-cv-03174/USCOURTS-cand-1_03-cv-03174-73/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)

---

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 

Northern District of California 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

MARTHA BERNDT, et al., 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF 

CORRECTIONS, et al., 

Defendants. 

Case No. 03-cv-03174-PJH 

ORDER VACATING TRIAL DATE AND 

REFERRING CASE TO MAGISTRATE 

JUDGE FOR ALL PURPOSES 

 On September 7, 2015, plaintiff’s counsel filed a letter with the court stating that 

plaintiff Martha Berndt had suffered an injury to her back that would prevent her from 

attending and testifying at trial, which is scheduled to begin on September 14, 2015. The 

letter further stated that plaintiff “would prefer that any delay in the trial be for a short 

time.” 

 On September 8, 2015, the court held a telephonic conference with the parties to 

discuss the impact of plaintiff’s injury on the trial schedule. Because the court’s schedule 

could not accommodate a brief continuance of the trial date, as requested by plaintiff, it 

gave the parties four options to choose from: (1) a continuance of the trial date to either 

July 2016 (for a two-week trial) or November 2016 (for a two-and-a-half-week trial); (2) 

keeping the current trial date and allowing plaintiff to testify via trial deposition; (3) 

consenting to try the case before a Magistrate Judge; or (4) a second-place trial position 

behind previously-scheduled trials, which would require that the parties be ready to try 

the case with as little as one week’s notice. 

 The parties both consented to try the case before Magistrate Judge Vadas, and on 

Case 1:03-cv-03174-NJV Document 846 Filed 09/10/15 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court 

Northern District of California 

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 

Se

gra

pa

an

da

Da

eptember 9,

anted. See

rties, this m

d entry of ju

The Se

te, time, an

IT IS S

ated: Septe

, 2015, the 

e Dkt. 845. 

matter is ref

udgment. 

eptember 1

nd place of 

SO ORDER

ember 10, 2

parties sub

Accordingl

ferred to Ma

4, 2015 tria

the next ap

RED. 

2015 

2

bmitted a st

y, pursuant

agistrate Ju

al date is VA

ppearance b

__

PH

Un

tipulation so

t to Local R

udge Vadas

ACATED. 

by notice fr

__________

HYLLIS J. H

nited States

o stating, w

Rule 72-1 a

s for all pur

The parties

rom Magistr

__________

HAMILTON

s District Ju

which the co

nd the cons

poses, inclu

s will be ad

rate Judge 

__________

udge 

ourt 

sent of the 

uding trial 

vised of the

Vadas. 

_______ 

e

 

Case 1:03-cv-03174-NJV Document 846 Filed 09/10/15 Page 2 of 2