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)
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notify the Court before April 16 that they have withdrawn their consent to proceed before a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?