Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01474/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01474-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 790
Nature of Suit: Other Labor Litigation
Cause of Action: 05:704 Labor Litigation

---

1

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

This Court conducted a preliminary scheduling conference on December 17, 2015, in the 

chambers of United States Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe. Plaintiff Ian Mitchinson, 

individually and on behalf of other similarly situated, appeared by telephone through counsel Stuart 

Talley. Defendants Love’s Travel Stops & Country Stores, Inc., and Love’s Country Stores of 

California appeared by telephone through counsel Curtis Graham and Matt Darden. 

A. Consent To Magistrate Judge

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), the parties have not consented to conduct all further 

proceedings in this case, including trial, before the Honorable Barbara A. McAuliffe, United States 

Magistrate Judge.

District Court Judges of the Fresno Division of the Eastern District of California now have the 

heaviest caseload in the nation. As a result, each District Judge schedules multiple trials to begin on 

each available trial date. Civil cases will “trail” and begin as soon as a courtroom is cleared. The law 

requires that the Court give any criminal trial priority over civil trials or any other matter. A civil trial 

set to begin while a criminal trial is proceeding will trail the completion of the criminal trial. 

The Court cannot give advance notice of which cases will trail or for how long because the 

Court does not know which cases actually will go to trial or precisely how long each will last. Once 

IAN MITCHINSON, individually and on 

behalf of all other similarly situated,

 Plaintiff,

vs.

LOVE’S TRAVEL STOPS & 

COUNTRY STORES, INC., et al., 

Defendants.

_______________________________/

Case No. 1:15-cv-01474-DAD-BAM

PRELIMINARY SCHEDULING ORDER

Case 1:15-cv-01474-DAD-BAM Document 14 Filed 12/18/15 Page 1 of 3
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

your trial date arrives, counsel, parties and witnesses must remain on 24-hour-stand-by until a court 

opens. Since continuance to a date certain will simply postpone, but not solve, the problem, 

continuances of any civil trial under these circumstances will no longer be entertained, absent a 

specific and stated finding of good cause. The Court will use its best efforts to mitigate the effect of 

the foregoing and to resolve all cases in a timely manner. 

One alternative is for the parties to consent to a United States Magistrate Judge conducting all 

proceedings, including trial and entry of final judgment, pursuant to § 28 U.S.C. 636(c), Federal Rule 

of Civil Procedure 73, and Local Rule 305. The Eastern District Magistrate Judges, all experienced 

former trial lawyers, use the same jury pool and same court facilities as United States District Court 

Judges. Since Magistrate Judges do not conduct felony trials, they have greater flexibility and 

schedule firm trial dates. Judgment entered by a United States Magistrate Judge is appealable directly 

to the United States Court of Appeal for the Ninth Circuit. (While there are scheduling benefits to 

consenting to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction, substantive rulings and decisions will not be affected by 

whether a party chooses to consent or not.)

 As another response to its large caseload, the Fresno Division of the Eastern District of 

California is assigning cases, whenever possible, to Article III District Court Judges from around the 

nation as Visiting Judges. Pursuant to the Local Rules, Appendix A, such 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. 

B. Preliminary Class Certification Dates 

After discussion with counsel, the Court SETS the following dates for class certification issues 

only: 

1. Rule 26 Disclosures: December 31, 2015

2. Non-Expert Discovery Cutoff: June 10, 2016

3. Class Certification Motion Filing Deadline: July 8, 2016

4. Class Certification Opposition: September 9, 2016

5. Class Certification Reply: October 7, 2016

///

Case 1:15-cv-01474-DAD-BAM Document 14 Filed 12/18/15 Page 2 of 3
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

6. Class Certification Hearing: October 18, 2016

Time: 9:30 a.m.

 Dept: 5 (DAD)

8. Scheduling Conference: December 15, 2016

Time: 9:00 a.m.

 Dept: 8 (BAM)

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 17, 2015 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-01474-DAD-BAM Document 14 Filed 12/18/15 Page 3 of 3