Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_02-cv-06385/USCOURTS-caed-1_02-cv-06385-8/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARIA TORRES and MELCHOR )

TORRES, individually and as )

Administrators of the Estate of )

EVERARDO TORRES, )

)

Plaintiffs, )

v. )

)

CITY OF MADERA, et al.,, )

)

Defendants. )

)

___________________________________ )

)

AND RELATED CROSS-ACTIONS )

____________________________________)

1: 02-CV-6385 AWI NEW

CONSOLIDATED WITH 

1: 03-CV-5999 AWI NEW

ORDER CONCERNING SEPTEMBER

27, 2007 STIPULATION

(Document #170)

This action arises from an incident in which Officer Marcy Noriega shot and killed

Everardo Torres (“Everardo”). Everado’s estate and family (“Plaintiffs”) have sued Officer

Noriega and the City of Madera (“Defendants”) under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state law. In a

consolidated case, the City of Madera and Officer Noriega have sued Taser International under a

products liability theory. Both cases are currently on appeal. A mediation is currently

scheduled in this matter for October 16, 2007.

Case 1:02-cv-06385-AWI-GSA Document 172 Filed 09/28/07 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

On September 27, 2007, the parties filed a stipulation. In this stipulation, the parties

states that California Code of Civil Procedure 583.10(a) requires a case to be brought to trial

within five years from the date the complaint is filed. This five year period will run in this case

on November 7, 2007. In light of the appeal and pending mediation, the parties stipulate to

extend the five year statue for one year.

A federal court sitting in diversity follow federal procedural law and, where it applies,

state substantive law. See, e.g., Gasperini v. Ctr. for Humanities, Inc., 518 U.S. 415, 427 (1996);

Erie R.R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64 (1938); Hanna v. Plumer, 380 U.S. 460, 472 (1965);

Zamani v. Carnes, 491 F.3d 990, 995 (9 Cir. 2007). This principle applies equally in the th

context of pendent or supplemental jurisdiction. In re Exxon Valdez, 484 F.3d 1098, 1100 (9

th

Cir. 2007). Some rules fall within the uncertain area between substance and procedure because

they are rationally capable of classification as either. Hanna v. Plumer, 380 U.S. 460, 472

(1965); Zamani v. Carnes, 491 F.3d 990, 995 (9 Cir. 2007). “When faced with a state law that

th

may be classified as either substantive or procedural, the court must determine whether there is

an applicable federal rule of civil procedure.” Zamani, 491 F.3d at 995. “If there is an

applicable federal rule, and if that rule is valid under the Rules Enabling Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2072,

that rule should be applied.” Id. 

The court finds that Section 583.310(a) is clearly a procedure rule. Federal law controls

the determination of when a federal court litigant is entitled to a jury trial. See Simler v. Conner,

372 U.S. 221, 222 (1963); Adams v. Johns-Manville Corp., 876 F.2d 702, 709 (9 Cir. 1989). th

Because California’s five year rule has no application in this court, the parties’ stipulation is

unnecessary. This court's procedures will continue to be governed by the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 28, 2007 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:02-cv-06385-AWI-GSA Document 172 Filed 09/28/07 Page 2 of 2