Smith et al v. Breakthrough International

Filing 45

CORRECTED ORDER DIRECTING DEFENDANT TO CONSENT OR DECLINE TO A MAGISTRATE BY APRIL 16 AND ORDERING PLAINTIFFS TO NOTIFY THE COURT IF THEY NO LONGER CONSENT TO A MAGISTRATE. Signed by Judge Jon S. Tigar on April 12, 2013. The title of the previous order had erroneously described Defendant's deadline to consent or decline as April 11 rather than April 16. CORRECTION OF DOCKET # 44 . (wsn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/12/2013)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 GWENDOLYN WALKER SMITH, et al., Case No. 12-cv-01832-JST Plaintiffs, 8 v. 9 10 BREAKTHROUGH INTERNATIONAL, et al., Defendants. United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 CORRECTED ORDER DIRECTING DEFENDANT TO CONSENT OR DECLINE TO A MAGISTRATE BY APRIL 16 AND ORDERING PLAINTIFFS TO NOTIFY THE COURT IF THEY NO LONGER CONSENT TO A MAGISTRATE 13 14 On July 9, 2012, Plaintiffs Gwendolyn Walker Smith and Zeus Harrison Smith 15 (“Plaintiffs”) consented to proceed before a United States Magistrate Judge in this case. Dkt. Nos. 16 8 & 9. In February, the Clerk of Court requested that Defendant Breakthrough International 17 (“Defendant”) file a consent or declination to proceed before a Magistrate Judge, but before 18 Defendant’s response was due, Magistrate Judge Spero recused himself from this case. Dkt. Nos. 19 32 & 33. 20 The Court hereby orders Defendant to select one of the attached forms documenting its 21 consent or declination to proceed before a Magistrate Judge, and file it with the Court by April 16, 22 2013. If Plaintiffs no longer consent to proceed before a Magistrate Judge, they are ordered to 23 notify the Court before April 16 that they have withdrawn their consent to proceed before a 24 Magistrate. 25 The motion hearing currently scheduled for April 17, 2013 is VACATED. The court will 26 reset the hearing, if necessary, if it appears that the case will continue to proceed before this Court. 27 /// 28 /// 1 2 3 4 5 6 Plaintiff Gwendolyn Walker Smith's motion to reschedule the April 17 hearing, Dkt. No. 43, is therefore denied as moot. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: April 12, 2013 ______________________________________ JON S. TIGAR United States District Judge 7 8 9 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 4 GWENDOLYN WALKER SMITH, et al., Case No. 12-cv-01832-JST Plaintiffs, 5 v. CONSENT TO PROCEED BEFORE A UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 6 7 BREAKTHROUGH INTERNATIONAL, et al., Defendants. 8 9 CONSENT TO PROCEED BEFORE A UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 11 United States District Court Northern District of California 10 In accordance with the provisions of Title 28, U.S.C. Section 636(c), the undersigned party 12 in the above-captioned civil matter hereby voluntarily consents to have a United States Magistrate 13 Judge conduct any and all further proceedings in the case, including trial, and order the entry of a 14 final judgment. Appeal from the judgment shall be taken directly to the United States Court of 15 Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. 16 Dated: 17 Signature 18 Counsel for ___________________________ (Plaintiff, Defendant or indicate “pro se”) 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3 1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 6 GWENDOLYN WALKER SMITH, et al., Case No. 12-cv-01832-JST Plaintiffs, 7 v. DECLINATION TO PROCEED BEFORE A MAGISTRATE JUDGE 8 9 BREAKTHROUGH INTERNATIONAL, et al., Defendants. 10 11 United States District Court Northern District of California DECLINATION TO PROCEED BEFORE A UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 12 The undersigned party hereby declines to consent to the assignment of this case to a United States 13 Magistrate Judge for trial and disposition. 14 Dated: 15 Signature 16 Counsel for ___________________________ (Plaintiff, Defendant or indicate “pro se”) 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4

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?