SCHEDULING ORDER (Fed. R. Civ. P. 16)

JENNIFER L. THURSTON, Magistrate Judge.

I. Date of Scheduling Conference

March 22, 2017.

II. Appearances of Counsel

Andrea Marcus appeared on behalf of Plaintiffs.

Kyle Holmes appeared on behalf of Defendant.

III. Magistrate Judge Consent:

Notice of Congested Docket and Court Policy of Trailing

Due to the District Judges' heavy caseload, the newly adopted policy of the Fresno Division of the Eastern District is to trail all civil cases. The parties are hereby notified that for a trial date set before a District Judge, the parties will trail indefinitely behind any higher priority criminal or older civil case set on the same date until a courtroom becomes available. The trial date will not be reset to a continued date.

The Magistrate Judges' availability is far more realistic and accommodating to parties than that of the U.S. District Judges who carry the heaviest caseloads in the nation and who must prioritize criminal and older civil cases over more recently filed civil cases. A United States Magistrate Judge may conduct trials, including entry of final judgment, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 73, and Local Rule 305. Any appeal from a judgment entered by a United States Magistrate Judge is taken directly to the United States Court of Appeal for the Ninth Circuit.

The Fresno Division of the Eastern District of California, whenever possible, is utilizing United States Article III District Court Judges from throughout the nation as Visiting Judges. Pursuant to the Local Rules, Appendix A, such reassignments will be random, and the parties will receive no advance notice before their case is reassigned to an Article III District Court Judge from outside of the Eastern District of California.

Therefore, the parties are directed to consider consenting to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction to conduct all further proceedings, including trial. Within 10 days of the date of this order, counsel SHALL file a consent/decline form (provided by the Court at the inception of this case) indicating whether they will consent to the jurisdiction of the Magistrate Judge.

IV. Pleading Amendment Deadline

Any requested pleading amendments are ordered to be filed, either through a stipulation or motion to amend, no later than May 1, 2017.

V. Administrative Record

Plaintiff SHALL lodge a searchable electronic copy of the administrative record no later than March 31, 2017. Plaintiff SHALL also provide a courtesy paper to the chambers of Judge O'Neill at the time of the filing of the opening brief. Objections to the record SHALL be filed no later than April 14, 2017.

If there is a dispute over the contents of the administrative record, the objecting party SHALL confer with the opposing party in a good faith effort to resolve the issues in dispute. If that good faith effort is unsuccessful, the objecting party SHALL promptly seek a telephonic hearing with all involved parties and the Magistrate Judge. It is the obligation of the objecting party to arrange and originate the conference call to the Court. To schedule this telephonic hearing, the parties are ordered to contact Courtroom Deputy Clerk, Susan Hall at (661) 326-6620 or via email at SHall@caed.uscourts.gov.

VI. Merits briefing

Plaintiff's brief related to fees SHALL be filed no later than April 28, 2017, and Defendant's opposing brief SHALL be filed no later than May 26, 2017. Plaintiff's reply, if any, SHALL be filed no later than June 16, 2017.

VII. Hearing

The hearing SHALL be set before the Honorable Lawrence J. O'Neill, United States District Court Judge, in Courtroom 4.

A. This is a Court trial.

B. Counsels' Estimate of Trial Time: 1 day.

C. Counsels' attention is directed to Local Rules of Practice for the Eastern District of California, Rule 285.

VIII. Compliance with Federal Procedure

All counsel are expected to familiarize themselves with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules of Practice of the Eastern District of California, and to keep abreast of any amendments thereto. The Court must insist upon compliance with these Rules if it is to efficiently handle its increasing case load and sanctions will be imposed for failure to follow the Rules as provided in both the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules of Practice for the Eastern District of California.

IX. Effect of this Order

The foregoing order represents the best estimate of the court and counsel as to the agenda most suitable to dispose of this case. The trial date reserved is specifically reserved for this case. If the parties determine at any time that the schedule outlined in this order cannot be met, counsel are ordered to notify the court immediately of that fact so that adjustments may be made, either by stipulation or by subsequent status conference.

The dates set in this Order are considered to be firm and will not be modified absent a showing of good cause even if the request to modify is made by stipulation. Stipulations extending the deadlines contained herein will not be considered unless they are accompanied by affidavits or declarations, and where appropriate attached exhibits, which establish good cause for granting the relief requested.

Failure to comply with this order may result in the imposition of sanctions.

IT IS SO ORDERED.