ORDER

MAX O. COGBURN, JR., District Judge.

THIS MATTER is before the Court on relators' Motion for Setting of Peremptory Trial Date. While the Court is aware of the benefits of a peremptory setting, there are a number of factors which counsel not allowing such request at this particular point in time. First, a motion for summary judgment is pending that will not become ripe before April 29, 2019. That motion is not likely to be reached before the end of May 2019 (assuming 30 days for disposition under the CJRA), and its resolution may, as defendants argue, resolve this case making a peremptory setting unnecessary.1 Second, the confirmation of a new judge for this district is pending. As the reassignment of this case was occasioned by the movement of Judge Voorhees to Senior Status, it is likely that this case will be reassigned to the new judge upon confirmation. That confirmation and reassignment is possible before this Court takes up the summary judgment matter and appears likely to happen before trial. Thus, this Court does not want to commit to a trial it may well not conduct or commit another judge to a term not knowing what his calendar will allow. The request for peremptory setting will, therefore, be denied without prejudice as to seeking such a setting after summary judgment has been resolved.

ORDER

IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that relators' Motion for Setting of Peremptory Trial Date (#103) is DENIED without prejudice.