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)

Download PDF
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

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?