Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00437/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00437-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Breach of Contract

---

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

CHRIS AGUILAR, individually, etc., CASE NO. CV F 13-0437 LJO GSA

Plaintiff, ORDER TO VACATE HEARING AND

TO SET SCHEDULING 

CONFERENCE

vs. (Doc. 15)

GENERAL MOTORS LLC, et al.,

Defendants.

______________________________/

On May 17, 2013, defendants filed their F.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss 

plaintiff’s original complaint and set a June 18, 2013 hearing. On June 4, 2013, plaintiff filed 

his first amended complaint (“FAC”) as matter of course under F.R.Civ.P. 15(a)(1). On June 5, 

2013, the parties filed their stipulation to request an extended briefing schedule for defendants’

anticipated F.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss the FAC.

Judges in the Eastern District of California carry the heaviest caseload in the nation, and 

this Court is unable to devote inordinate time and resources to individual cases and matters. 

U.S. District Judge Lawrence J. O’Neill must adhere to strict scheduling to best manage his

burdensome caseload approaching 2,000 cases. The parties’ proposed briefing schedule 

contemplates an extension of opposition and reply dates beyond those contemplated by Local 

Rule 230(g) and fails to demonstrate good cause for such extended dates. Setting extended 

opposition and reply dates as requested by the parties would jeopardize Judge O’Neill’s case 

Case 1:13-cv-00437-LJO-GSA Document 16 Filed 06/07/13 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

management and would necessitate devotion of inordinate time and resources to this action at 

the expense of other actions and litigants. 

The parties’ proposed briefing schedule can be accomplished only if the parties consent 

to the conduct of all further proceedings by one of the Court’s U.S. Magistrate Judges. The 

Magistrate Judges' availability is far more realistic and accommodating to parties than that of 

Judge O’Neill, who must prioritize criminal and older civil cases over more recently filed civil 

cases. If the parties consent to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction, the reassigned magistrate judge 

can set briefing dates to accommodate the parties. 

Moreover, civil trials set before Judge O'Neill trail until he becomes available and are 

subject to suspension mid-trial to accommodate criminal matters. Civil trials are no longer reset 

to a later date if Judge O'Neill is unavailable on the original date set for trial. If a trial trails, it 

may proceed with little advance notice, and the parties and counsel may be expected to proceed 

to trial with less than 24 hours notice. Also, this Court's Fresno Division randomly and without 

advance notice reassigns civil actions to U.S. District Judges throughout the nation to serve as 

visiting judges. In the absence of Magistrate Judge consent, this action is subject to 

reassignment to a U.S. District Judge from outside the Eastern District of California. Case 

management difficulties, including briefing schedules, trial setting and interruption, are avoided 

if the parties consent to conduct of further proceedings by a Magistrate Judge.

The parties are required to consider, and if necessary, to reconsider consent to one of the 

Court’s Magistrate Judges. A Magistrate Judge consent form is available on this Court’s 

website. The parties and counsel are encouraged to contact United States Senators Diane 

Feinstein and Barbara Boxer to address this Court’s inability to accommodate the parties and 

this action. For further information regarding handling of this action, the parties may contact 

staff attorney Gary Green at (559) 499-5683 or email him at ggreen@caed.uscourts.gov.

On the basis of good cause, this Court:

1. VACATES the June 18, 2013 hearing on defendants’ motion to dismiss in that the 

FAC renders moot the motion to dismiss plaintiff’s original complaint;

2. DIRECTS the clerk to term the motion to dismiss the original complaint (doc. 10);

Case 1:13-cv-00437-LJO-GSA Document 16 Filed 06/07/13 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

3. ORDERS defendants, no later than June 18, 2013, to file and serve papers to respond 

to the FAC and otherwise DENIES without prejudice the motion to dismiss 

opposition and reply dates proposed by the parties; and

4. SETS a scheduling conference for August 14, 2013 at 9:30 a.m. before U.S. 

Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin in Department 10 (GSA).

This Court will take no further action on the motion to dismiss the original complaint 

(doc. 10).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 6, 2013 /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE DEAC_Signature-END:

66h44d

Case 1:13-cv-00437-LJO-GSA Document 16 Filed 06/07/13 Page 3 of 3