Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_01-cv-01967/USCOURTS-caed-2_01-cv-01967-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- 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

LARRY McIVER, et al., )

) CIV. S-01-1967 GEB KJM

Plaintiffs, ) 

) ORDER

v. ) 

)

THE CALIFORNIA EXPOSITION AND )

FAIR, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

)

On July 11, 2005, the date on which the parties’ Joint

Pretrial Statement was due, all but one party filed a Notice of

Partial Settlement in which they state

[t]he plaintiffs . . . are pleased to report they

have entered a proposed Consent Decree with

defendants California State Exposition and Fair

and the State of California that if approved will

completely resolve the injunctive relief claims

against such defendants. A separate proposed

settlement between such plaintiffs and defendant

Ray Cammack Shows is near completion and should be

submitted for approval by early next week.

These parties also assert that the scheduled trial in this

action should be rescheduled for trial before United States Magistrate

Judge Mueller in early December 2005, through a “referral” of the

trial to Magistrate Judge Mueller. It is unclear what the filing

parties mean by the term “referral.” The July 11 filing also

indicates that this action (“McIver”) is related to ISC v. California

Case 2:01-cv-01967-KJM Document 134 Filed 07/12/05 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 1 Further, it is unclear whether the parties’ proposed Consent

Decree will be adopted by the Court.

2

State Exposition and Fair, No. Civ. S-04-1790 DFL (“ISC”), yet the

filing parties have not filed a Notice of Related Cases under Local

Rule 83-123 and it is unclear why the filing parties have waited until

the virtual eve of trial in McIver to tell the trial judge in McIver

that McIver should be consolidated with ISC. The filing parties also

indicate that a pending state action should somehow be consolidated

with McIver and ISC, so state damage claims involved in the three

cases can be resolved in federal court. 

Since the parties have not settled the damage claims in

McIver and appear to have waited too long to try to effect a

consolidation of McIver with the other referenced actions, the final

pretrial conference scheduled in McIver for July 18, 2005, is not

vacated and sanctions may be considered because of the parties’

failure to file a Joint Pretrial Statement.1

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 12, 2005

/s/ Garland E. Burrell, Jr.

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:01-cv-01967-KJM Document 134 Filed 07/12/05 Page 2 of 2