Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_10-cv-00506/USCOURTS-caed-2_10-cv-00506-14/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Other Civil Rights

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

LIEU THI TRUONG, et. al, 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

SACRAMENTO COUNTY SHERIFF 

DEPARTMENT, et. al, 

Defendants. 

No. 2:10-cv-00506-MCE-AC 

ORDER 

On June 27, 2014, the Court vacated the August 18, 2014 jury trial for the 

reasons stated on the record. The trial is CONTINUED to January 12, 2015, at 

9:00 a.m. in Courtroom 7. The Court is in receipt of the parties’ Trial Briefs (ECF Nos. 

86, 89), Joint Pretrial Statement (ECF No. 83), Motions in Limine (ECF Nos. 82, 84), and 

Supplemental Briefing (ECF Nos. 94, 95). 

Accordingly, the 8/14/2014 Final Pretrial Conference is VACATED and 

CONTINUED to December 4, 2014, at 2:00 p.m. in Courtroom 7. An Amended Joint 

Final Pretrial Statement is due not later than November 6, 2014 and shall comply with 

the procedures outlined in the Court’s Pretrial Scheduling Order. The personal 

appearances of the trial attorneys or person(s) in pro se is mandatory for the Final 

Pretrial Conference. Telephonic appearances for this hearing are not permitted. 

Case 2:10-cv-00506-ODW Document 96 Filed 07/16/14 Page 1 of 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 

2

The Court will hear argument on the parties' pending Motions in Limine, ECF Nos. 

82, 84, and on the issue of standing as it relates to Plaintiff Lieu Thi Truong and the 

Decedents' Plaintiff siblings at the Final Pretrial Conference. See ECF No. 93. Not later 

than fourteen (14) days prior to the final pretrial conference, the parties are directed to 

file amended Trial Briefs, not to exceed ten (10) pages, informing the Court of the status 

of: (1) the issue of Plaintiff Lieu Thi Truong's standing, including, but not limited to, 

compliance with California Code of Civil Procedure § 377.32 and the determination of 

her right to proceed; (2) the status of the Decedents' Plaintiff siblings as it relates to the 

issue of their standing in this matter; and (3) the effect of the Plaintiffs' standing, if any, 

on Plaintiffs' claims, the number of witnesses, and disputed issues at trial. The parties 

are directed to attach an amended witness list to their filing. 

The parties are cautioned that, if after hearing argument on the issue of Plaintiffs’ 

standing, including, but not limited to, Plaintiff Lieu Thi Truong's compliance with 

California Code of Civil Procedure § 377.32 and the determination of her right to 

proceed, the Court determines that this matter is not ready for trial, the trial date may be 

continued. To the extent that the parties resolve any disputes relating to the standing of 

any or all of the Plaintiffs at any point prior to the Final Pretrial Conference, they may file 

a stipulation and proposed order as set forth in the Local Rules. 

/// 

/// 

/// 

/// 

/// 

/// 

/// 

/// 

/// 

/// 

Case 2:10-cv-00506-ODW Document 96 Filed 07/16/14 Page 2 of 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 

3

Finally, due to the Court’s high civil caseload, the parties are encouraged to 

consider consenting to a jury or nonjury trial before the assigned Magistrate Judge1 as 

well as availing themselves of the Court’s Alternative Dispute Resolution programs.2 

See E.D. Cal. Local Rs. 171, 301. 

 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: July 8, 2014 

 1

 The Eastern District of California has for years been one of the busiest District Courts in the 

nation. The parties are reminded that pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 73 and Local Rule 301, 

the parties may consent to a jury or nonjury trial before the assigned Magistrate Judge. As a result of the 

Court’s high civil case load and the statutory right to a speedy trial in criminal cases, the parties are 

encouraged to consider the advantages of consenting to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction. Magistrate Judges 

can assign civil litigants a trial date much sooner and with more certainty than District Court Judges. In 

addition, since Magistrate Judges do not try felony cases, a trial date assigned by one can be considered 

a firm date which will not be preempted by a criminal case. Exercise of this jurisdiction by a Magistrate 

Judge is however, permitted only if all parties file a voluntarily consent form. Parties may, without adverse 

substantive consequences, withhold their consent, but this will prevent the Court's case dispositive 

jurisdiction from being exercised by a Magistrate Judge. 

2

 The Court may, at the election of all the parties, refer certain actions to the Voluntary Dispute 

Resolution Program ("VDRP"). If the parties believe that participation in a mediation and/or a settlement 

conference with a Magistrate Judge would be beneficial, they are encouraged to contact the Court's 

Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) Division, in writing, at the address or email address below: ADR 

Division, Attention: Sujean Park, U.S. District Court, 501 I Street, Suite 4-200, Sacramento, CA 95814, 

email: spark@caed.uscourts.gov. Alternatively, the parties may request referral to the VDRP by filing a 

Stipulation and Proposed Order reflecting the agreement of all parties to submit the action to the VDRP 

pursuant to Local Rule 271. Should the parties reach a settlement or otherwise resolve their case by 

agreement of the parties, they are reminded that it is the duty of counsel to immediately file a notice of 

settlement or resolution as set forth in Local Rule 160. 

Case 2:10-cv-00506-ODW Document 96 Filed 07/16/14 Page 3 of 3