Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

BILETNIKOFF v. CHASE BANK USA, N.A., CV F 13-0208 LJO SKO. (2013)

Court: District Court, E.D. California Number: infdco20130625759 Visitors: 10
Filed: Jun. 24, 2013
Latest Update: Jun. 24, 2013
Summary: ORDER ON STIPULATION (Doc. 25) LAWRENCE J. O'NEILL, District Judge. On May 23, 2013, defendant Chase Bank USA, N.A. ("Chase"), filed its F.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss (doc. 19) plaintiff Cynthia Biletnikoff's ("Ms. Biletnikoff's")First Amended Complaint ("FAC"), which Ms. Biletnikoff filed as a matter of course after Chase filed its motion to dismiss Ms. Biletnikoff's original complaint. This Court vacated the July 1, 2013 hearing set by Chase on its motion to dismiss the FAC and set a
More

ORDER ON STIPULATION (Doc. 25)

LAWRENCE J. O'NEILL, District Judge.

On May 23, 2013, defendant Chase Bank USA, N.A. ("Chase"), filed its F.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss (doc. 19) plaintiff Cynthia Biletnikoff's ("Ms. Biletnikoff's")First Amended Complaint ("FAC"), which Ms. Biletnikoff filed as a matter of course after Chase filed its motion to dismiss Ms. Biletnikoff's original complaint. This Court vacated the July 1, 2013 hearing set by Chase on its motion to dismiss the FAC and set a briefing schedule. On June 21, 2013, the parties' filed their stipulation to permit Ms. Biletnikoff to file a second amended complaint ("SAC") and to withdraw Chase's 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. This Court is unable to entertain multiple attempts to amend complaints. Filed complaints must satisfy F.R.Civ.P. 8 and federal pleading standards and must allege only claims based on supporting law and facts.

Entertaining multiple complaints 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 better 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 law and motion, 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. DENIES as moot Chase's motion to dismiss the FAC given Chase's withdrawal of the motion; 2. DIRECTS the clerk to term the motion to dismiss the FAC (doc. 19); 3. ORDERS Ms. Biletnikoff, no later than June 26, 2013, to file and serve her Second Amended Complaint which satisfies F.R.Civ.P. 8 and federal pleading standards and which alleges only claims supported by law and facts; 4. ADMONISHES Ms. Biletnikoff that, given its caseload, this district judge is unable to entertain further amended complaints and that this district judge will not permit Ms. Biletnikoff to file a further amended complaint in the absence of absolute good cause; and 5. ORDERS Chase, no later than July 17, 2013, to file and serve papers to respond to the SAC.

This Court will take no further action on the motion to dismiss the FAC (doc. 19).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer