Debt Buyers Inc v. Hamati et al

Filing 7

NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT AND ORDER - Pursuant to Local Rule ("LRCiv") 3.8(a), Rules of Practice, effective December 1, 2006, 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. That Defendants/Counterclaimants/ Third-Party Plaintiffs Munir K. Hamati and Tammy A. Hamati shall file on or before October 19, 2007 their written elections to either consent to magistrate judge jurisdiction or elect to proceed before a United States district judge. FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff/Counterdefendant Debt Buyers, Inc., dba Freedom Capital and Third-Party Defendant Hameroff Lavinsky Law Firm, P.C. shall either consent to proceed before a magistrate judge or elect to proceed before a district judge by October 19, 2007. Signed by Judge Lawrence O Anderson on 9/28/07. (KMG)

Download PDF
Debt Buyers Inc v. Hamati et al Doc. 7 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 Debt Buyers Inc., dba Freedom Capital, ) ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) Munir K. Hamati and Tammy A. Hamati,) ) husband and wife, ) ) Defendants. ) ) Munir K. Hamati and Tammy A. Hamati,) husband and wife, ) ) Counterclaimants, ) ) vs. ) ) Debt Buyers, Inc., dba Freedom Capital, ) ) Counterdefendant. ) ) ) Munir K. Hamati and Tammy A. Hamati,) husband and wife, ) ) Third-Party Plaintiffs, ) ) vs. ) ) Hameroff Lavinsky Law Firm, P.C., an) Arizona Professional corporation, ) ) Third-Party Defendant. ) ) No. CV-07-1850-PHX-LOA NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT AND ORDER Pursuant to Local Rule (?LRCiv") 3.8(a), Rules of Practice, effective December 1, 2006, all civil cases are, and will be, randomly assigned to a U.S. district Case 2:07-cv-01850-LOA Document 7 Filed 10/01/2007 Page 1 of 3 Dockets.Justia.com 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 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 Local 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 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 party to a federal civil case has, subject to some exceptions, a constitutional right to proceed before an Article III judge." Dixon v. Ylst, 990 F.2d 478, 479 (9th Cir. 1993) (citing Pacemaker Diagnostic Clinic of Am. Inc. v. Instromedix, Inc., 725 F.2d 537, 541 (9th Cir. 1984) (en banc)). 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 form. -2Case 2:07-cv-01850-LOA Document 7 Filed 10/01/2007 Page 2 of 3 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 A review of the Court's file indicates that Defendants/Counterclaimants/ Third-Party Plaintiffs Munir K. Hamati and Tammy A. Hamati filed a Notice of Removal on September 27, 2007. Defendants/Counterclaimants/Third-Party Plaintiffs Munir K. Hamati and Tammy A. Hamati shall have until October 19, 2007, within which to make their selections to either consent to magistrate judge jurisdiction or elect to proceed before a U. S. district judge. The Clerk of the Court shall electronically transmit the appropriate consent form to all counsel upon receipt of this Order. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Defendants/Counterclaimants/ Third-Party Plaintiffs Munir K. Hamati and Tammy A. Hamati shall file on or before October 19, 2007 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 Plaintiff/Counterdefendant Debt Buyers, Inc., dba Freedom Capital and Third-Party Defendant Hameroff Lavinsky Law Firm, P.C. shall either consent to proceed before a magistrate judge or elect to proceed before a district judge by October 19, 2007. 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, 2006. 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 28th day of September, 2007. -3Case 2:07-cv-01850-LOA Document 7 Filed 10/01/2007 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?