ORDER ON STIPULATION TO EXTEND DATES

(Doc. 18.)

LAWRENCE J. O'NEILL, District Judge.

The parties stipulate to move the August 9, 2013 summary judgment motion filing deadline to September 9, 2013 with an October 14, 2013 hearing due to difficulties to complete settlement. Although the parties' request appears reasonable, this Court is unable to extend the summary judgment dates in the absence of consent to one of this Court's U.S. Magistrate Judges.

This action's schedule was crafted to maximize limited judicial resources and to best manage U.S. District Judge O'Neill's burdensome caseload approaching 2,000 cases. In particular, Judge O'Neill is unable to reset dates which would disrupt his impacted trial calendar. Resetting dates as requested by the parties would jeopardize Judge O'Neill's case management because it would require resetting the October 23, 2013 pretrial conference and possibly the December 3, 2013 trial. An October 14, 2013 summary judgment hearing gives insufficient time for Judge O'Neill to rule on summary judgment prior to the October 23, 2013 pretrial conference and in turn to prepare for the pretrial conference. Moving the summary judgment dates would devote inordinate resources to this action at the expense of other actions and litigants. Based on his caseload, Judge O'Neill requires full submission of dispositive motions no less than 70 days before trial and a pretrial conference no less than 45 days before trial. The parties' proposed dates fail to provide Judge O'Neill such accommodation, despite the possibility of settlement.

Resetting dates on a time frame requested by the parties can be accomplished if, and only if, the parties consent to the conduct of all further proceedings by one of this 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 reset 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. Case management difficulties, including trial setting and interruption, are avoided if the parties consent to conduct of further proceedings by a U.S. Magistrate Judge.

On the basis of good cause, this Court:

1. DENIES without prejudice the parties' requested extension of summary judgment filing and hearing dates:

2. ORDERS the parties to consider, and if necessary, to reconsider, consent to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction; and

3. ORDERS the parties' counsel, no later than August 16, 2013, to file and serve papers to indicate whether each party consents to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction. Magistrate Judge consent forms are available on this Court's website.

The parties and counsel are encouraged to contact United States Senators Diane Feinstein and Barbara Boxer to address 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.

IT IS SO ORDERED.