Amiot, et al. v. Twin City Fire Insurance Company et al

Filing 6

ORDER that Dfts Twin City Fire shall file on/before 8/18/06 their written elections to either consent to magistrate judge jurisdiction or elect to proceed before United States District Judge FURTHER ORDERED that if Dfts have not already done so, Dfts shall serve upon the Plas the appropriate consent form provided at the time of the filing of their Notice of Removal at the time of service of its Notice of Removal upon Plas FURTHER ORDERED that Plas shall either consent to proceed before a Magistrate Judge or elect to proceed before a District Judge by 8/18/06. Signed by Judge Lawrence O Anderson on 8/3/06. (MAP)

Download PDF
Amiot, et al. v. Twin City Fire Insurance Company et al Doc. 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 WO IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA Thomas L. Amiot and Rosie Amiot,) husband and wife, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) ) Twin City Fire c/o The Hartford and White) Corporation I-X, ) ) Defendants. ) ) No. CV-06-1831-PHX-LOA NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT AND ORDER Pursuant to Local Rule 3.8(a), LRCiv, Rules of Practice effective December 1, 2005, all civil cases are, and will be, randomly assigned to a U.S. district judge or to a U.S. magistrate judge. This matter has been assigned to the undersigned U.S. Magistrate Judge. As a result of the aforesaid Rule, if all parties consent in writing, the case will remain with the assigned magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(c)(1) for all purposes, including trial and final entry of judgment. If any party chooses the district judge option, the case will be randomly reassigned to a U.S. district judge. To either consent to the assigned magistrate judge or to elect to have the case heard before a district judge, the appropriate section of the form, entitled Consent To Exercise Of Jurisdiction By United States Magistrate Judge1, must be completed, signed and filed. The party filing the case or removing The consent/election form may be obtained directly from the Clerk of the Court or by accessing the District of Arizona's web site at www.azd.uscourts.gov. To find the consent/election form on the District's web site, click on "Local Rules" at the top of the page, then click on "forms" on the left side of the page and then click on and print the appropriate Case 2:06-cv-01831-PGR Document 6 Filed 08/04/2006 Page 1 of 3 Dockets.Justia.com 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 it to this Court is responsible for serving all parties with the consent forms. Each party must file a completed consent form and certificate of service with the Clerk of the Court not later than 20 days after entry of appearance, and must serve a copy by mail or hand delivery upon all parties of record in the case. Any party is free to withhold consent to magistrate judge jurisdiction without adverse consequences. 28 U.S.C. 636(c)(2); Rule 73(b), Fed.R.Civ.P.; Anderson v. Woodcreek Venture Ltd., 351 F.3d 911, 913-14 (9th Cir. 2003) (pointing out that consent is the "touchstone of magistrate [judge] jurisdiction" under 28 U.S.C. 636(c). A review of the Court's file indicates that Defendants Twin City Fire c/o The Hartford have filed a Notice of Removal on July 24, 2006. Defendants shall have until August 18, 2006, within which to make their selection to either consent to magistrate judge jurisdiction or elect to proceed before a U. S. district judge. It is unknown if a copy of the appropriate consent form, electronically provided to counsel for Plaintiffs and Defendants by the Clerk at the time the Notice of Removal was filed, was served with the Notice of Removal per the written instructions from the Clerk. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the Defendants Twin City Fire c/o The Hartford shall file on or before August 18, 2006 their written elections to either consent to magistrate judge jurisdiction or elect to proceed before a United States district judge. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if Defendants have not already done so, Defendants shall serve upon the Plaintiffs the appropriate consent form electronically provided at the time of the filing of their Notice of Removal at the time of service of its Notice of Removal upon the Plaintiffs. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs shall either consent to proceed before a magistrate judge or elect to proceed before a district judge by August 18, 2006. form. -2Case 2:06-cv-01831-PGR Document 6 Filed 08/04/2006 Page 2 of 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that counsel and any party, if unrepresented, shall hereinafter comply with the Rules of Practice for the United States District Court for the District of Arizona, as amended on December 1, 2005. The District's Rules of Practice may be found on the District Court's internet web page at www.azd.uscourts.gov/. All other rules may be found as www.uscourts.gov/rules/. The fact that a party is acting pro se does not discharge this party's duties to "abide by the rules of the court in which he litigates." Carter v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 784 F.2d 1006, 1008 (9th Cir. 1986). DATED this 3rd day of August, 2006. -3Case 2:06-cv-01831-PGR Document 6 Filed 08/04/2006 Page 3 of 3

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?