Porter et al v. Bank of America, N.A. et al

Filing 22

ORDER DENYING 21 Motion signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 4/24/2014. (Jessen, A)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DONNA PORTER, et al., Plaintiffs, 12 13 14 15 Case No. 1:14-cv-00431-LJO-SAB ORDER DENYING MOTION v. ECF NO. 21 BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., et al., Defendants. 16 17 On April 23, 2014, Plaintiffs Donna Porter (“Plaintiff”) filed a “Notice and Motion for 18 Order to Show Cause why Order Denying Motion to Strike Should Not be Vacated Due to Lack 19 of Subject Matter Jurisdiction Pursuant to 28 USC § 636(c).” (ECF No. 21.) Plaintiff argues 20 that the magistrate’s order on April 9, 2014 denying Plaintiff’s motion to strike Defendant’s 21 motion to dismiss and Plaintiff’s request for a beneficiary statement was improper because 22 Plaintiff declined to consent to the jurisdiction for all purposes. (See ECF No. 19.) 23 Plaintiff misunderstands the authority of magistrate judges and the meaning of the 24 consent form regarding magistrate judge authority. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A), a 25 magistrate judge possesses the authority to hear and decide any pretrial matter pending before the 26 court, except for certain matters, such as motions for injunctive relief, for judgment on the 27 pleadings, for summary judgment, etc. A magistrate judge possesses this authority to determine 28 the matters delineated in Section 636(b)(1)(A) irrespective of whether the parties consent to the 1 1 magistrate judge’s authority. 2 Furthermore, 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1) permits a magistrate judge to conduct any or all 3 proceedings in a jury or nonjury civil matter upon the consent of the parties. Accordingly, a 4 magistrate judge’s authority to conduct all proceedings exists only if the parties consent. The 5 form filed by Plaintiff indicates that Plaintiff declines to consent to a magistrate judge 6 conducting all proceedings in this matter, but has no effect on the magistrate judge’s authority to 7 hear and decide the matters delineated in Section 636(b)(1)(A). The motions decided by the 8 magistrate judge in the April 9, 2014 order fall within the category of matters delineated in 9 Section 636(b)(1)(A). Due to this Court’s overwhelming caseload, all matters that can be 10 decided by a magistrate judge pursuant to 636(b)(1)(A) will be performed by a magistrate judge. 11 See Local Rule 302(a). Accordingly, the April 9, 2014 order was proper and within the 12 magistrate judge’s authority. 13 Based upon the foregoing, Plaintiff’s April 23, 2014 motion is DENIED. 14 15 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill April 24, 2014 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

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?