Derrevere Stevens Black & Cozad
  • call Us Today
    877-602-4132
  • Who We Are
  • Our People
  • Practice Areas
  • Offices
  • Careers
  • News
Follow Us on LinkedIn

Federal Court Litigation and Considerations for Proceeding with a Magistrate Judge

Federal Court Litigation: Magistrate Judge
July 2, 2021
by derreverelaw
Federal Court Practices

As the court system seeks to return to its new post-pandemic normal, DSB&C remains committed to legal excellence in representing clients.  The goal in litigated cases is to obtain the fair and just determination in every case.  In Federal Court, consent to a magistrate judge may be a tactical advantage to consider.  28 U.S.C. Chapter 43 sets forth the qualifications, training, and jurisdiction of a magistrate judge.  Appointment of a magistrate judge is made without regard to political affiliation and must be confirmed by the district court judges.  The statute ensures only the most experienced and highest caliber are selected.  Consenting to a magistrate judge allows all issues of the case to be developed and determined by one judge rather than the usual practice of proceeding before the magistrate judge for discovery issues and the district judge for trial.

 

Because magistrate judges do not preside over felony criminal trials, they have greater flexibility in scheduling deadlines and trial.  This affords greater opportunity to uncover complex factual issues and delve into the intricacies of legal causation and damages.  Consent to the magistrate judge helps the court system to utilize its resources as efficiently as possible while ensuring proficient and highly qualified judgeship from inception to resolution of a case. The attorneys at DSB&C are experienced in all aspects of federal court litigation.  Our attorneys consider the client’s right to proceed before a magistrate judge and provide thoughtful recommendations on a case-specific basis.  

 

Click here to email me anytime if you have additional questions.

Previous Post
Jon D. Derrevere scores another victory for Target at the 11th Circuit Court of Appeal
Next Post
Michael B. Stevens to Speak on the Implied Co-Insured Doctrine at the 2021 National Association for Subrogation Professionals’ Annual Conference on November 7-8
Share
Categories
  • Blog
  • Case Studies
  • Cases
  • Civil Litigation
  • Claim Management
  • Community
  • Construction Law
  • DSB&C Insights
  • DSB&C News
  • Events
  • Federal Court Practices
  • Firm News
  • First Party Practice
  • Insurance Defense
  • Insurance Law
  • Legislative Update
  • Massachusetts Legal Practice
  • News
  • Press Releases
  • Probate
  • Statutory Updates
  • Subrogation
  • Superior Court
  • Uncategorized
  • Workers Compensation
Recent Posts
  • Unlocking The Recipe to Successful Subrogation Claim Management
  • Raising Subro: Building Your Subrogation Dream Team
  • When it Comes to Indemnification in Construction Contracts, the Sky is NOT the Limit
  • Unlocking The Recipe to Successful Subrogation Claim Management
  • Raising Subro: Building Your Subrogation Dream Team
  • When it Comes to Indemnification in Construction Contracts, the Sky is NOT the Limit
  • Sufficiency of Affidavits Supporting Motions for Summary Judgement
  • Additional Personal Injury Protection Subrogation: A Not So New Pair of Shoes
Attorneys List
  • Jacquelyn “Jackie” Roys Clifton
  • Karina Acevedo
  • Kathleen “Katie” Hinkle
  • Vicki A. Knapp
  • Kristin Bianculli
  • James Gallagher
  • Michelle Smith Lambert
  • Richard T Freilich
  • Tyler D Hardy
  • Douglas M Allen

Copyright Derrevere Stevens Black & Cozad © 2023. All Rights Reserved

  • Home
  • Who We Are
  • Our People
  • Practice Areas
  • Offices
  • Careers
  • News