TEK Global S.R.L. et.al. v. Sealant Systems International Inc. et.al.

Filing 407

ORDER REASSIGNING ACTION. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley on 6/20/2016. (ahm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/20/2016)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

TEK GLOBAL S.R.L., et al.,
Plaintiffs,

8

SEALANT SYSTEMS INTERNATIONAL,
INC., et al.,

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

ORDER REASSIGNING ACTION

v.

9
10

Case No. 11-cv-00774-JSC

Defendants.

12
This case was originally assigned to Magistrate Judge Paul Grewal. Following the initial

13
14

case management conference, the parties each filed a written consent to have “a United States

15

Magistrate Judge conduct any and all further proceedings in this case, including trial, and order the

16

entry of a final judgment.” (Dkt. Nos. 25, 41.) The case was recently reassigned to the

17

undersigned magistrate judge following Magistrate Judge Grewal’s departure from the bench. The

18

parties’ previously written consent was not revocable merely because it was assigned to another

19

magistrate judge. Accordingly, upon reassignment, consent was not sought. Defendants

20

nonetheless filed a declination to proceed before a magistrate judge and seek reassignment to a

21

district court judge. (Dkt. Nos. 404, 406.) Plaintiff objects to a further reassignment. (Dkt. No.

22

403.)

23

In the unique circumstances of this case, reassignment is appropriate. By the time of the

24

initial case management conference no party had filed a written consent to proceed before a

25

magistrate judge. Accordingly, at the conference, Magistrate Judge Grewal specifically asked the

26

parties: “Are you consenting to my jurisdiction or not?” (Dkt. No. 309 at 3 (emphasis added).)

27

The parties responded in the affirmative. Judge Grewal then asked the parties to file “an

28

appropriate consent form on the docket so there is no mystery about this.” (Id. at 4.) Defendants

1

subsequently filed the generic consent to a magistrate judge form. (Dkt. No. 25.) The sequence of

2

events, however, suggests that Defendants intended to consent specifically to the jurisdiction of

3

Magistrate Judge Grewal as they now insist. While Defendants should have made that clear on

4

their written consent form, the Court will order the case reassigned given that at the case

5

management conference the parties were asked to consent specifically to Magistrate Judge

6

Grewal’s jurisdiction.

7

Accordingly, the Court directs the parties to meet and confer on whether they consent to

8

the jurisdiction of a different magistrate judge in this District. If no such stipulation is filed within

9

seven days, this action will be reassigned to a district court judge.

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: June 20, 2016

12
JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY
United States Magistrate Judge

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2