Global Quality Foods, Inc. v. Van Hoekelen Greenhouses, Inc.

Filing 34

ORDER --- As the attached order discusses, the court just noted that third-party defendant Total Quality Logistics did not file a signed consent to magistrate-judge jurisdiction. Any party is free to withhold consent without substantive consequenc es. This obviously poses an issue with the pending hearing on August 4. If Total Quality Logistics files its consent by tomorrow, August 2, the court will be able to address the motion on August 4. Alternatively, counsel may need time to consult with the client. If that is so, then the court would continue the hearing for a week (or to any subsequent Thursday that is convenient for counsel). Either way, the court asks Total Quality Logistics to either file its consent or declination or update the court about its timeline by 5:30 p.m. on August 2. Signed by Judge Laurel Beeler on 8/1/2016. (lblc3S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/1/2016)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

San Francisco Division

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

GLOBAL QUALITY FOODS, INC.,

12

Plaintiff.

13

NOTICE REGARDING CONSENT TO
JURISDICTION OF UNITED STATES
MAGISTRATE JUDGE

v.

14

VAN HOEKELEN GREENHOUSES, INC.,

15

Case No. 16-cv-00920-LB

Re: ECF No. 26

Defendant.

16

The initial complaint in this action was filed on February 24, 2016. (ECF No. 1.) 1 Under

17

General Order 44, the case was assigned randomly to the undersigned to conduct all proceedings.

18

28 U.S.C. § 636(c) requires the consent of all parties before the court can address the case on the

19

merits. The plaintiff and the defendant both consented. (ECF Nos. 7 and 16.) Thereafter, the

20

defendant filed a third-party complaint against Total Quality Logistics. (ECF No. 17.) Total

21

Quality Logistics moved to dismiss the complaint for improper venue under Federal Rule

22

12(b)(3). (ECF No. 26.) It did not file a signed consent to the court’s jurisdiction.

23

There is a split of authority about whether venue motions are dispositive. The court has not

24

researched the issue exhaustively but, for various reasons, the district’s practice is to ask for a

25

signed consent or declination before addressing a substantive motion. Any party is free to

26

withhold consent without substantive consequences. If the parties do not consent, likely the case

27
1

28

Record citations refer to material in the Electronic Case File (“ECF”); pinpoint citations are to
the ECF-generated page numbers at the top of documents.
ORDER (No. 16-cv-00920-LB)

1
2

will be randomly assigned to a district judge of this court.
This obviously poses an issue with the pending hearing on August 4. If Total Quality Logistics

3

files its consent by tomorrow, August 2, the court will be able to address the motion on August 4.

4

Alternatively, counsel may need time to consult with the client. If that is so, then the court would

5

continue the hearing for a week (or to any subsequent Thursday that is convenient for counsel).

6

Either way, the court asks Total Quality Logistics to either file its consent or declination or update

7

the court about its timeline by 5:30 p.m. on August 2.

8

Dated: August 1, 2016
______________________________________
LAUREL BEELER
United States Magistrate Judge

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
ORDER (No. 16-cv-00920-LB)

2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

1

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

2

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

3

GLOBAL QUALITY FOODS, INC.,

4

Case No. 16-cv-00920-LB

Plaintiff.

5
v.

6

CONSENT OR DECLINATION
TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE
JURISDICTION

VAN HOEKELEN GREENHOUSES, INC,

7

Defendant.

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18

INSTRUCTIONS: Please indicate below by checking one of the two boxes whether you (if you are the party)
or the party you represent (if you are an attorney in the case) choose(s) to consent or decline magistrate judge
jurisdiction in this matter. Sign this form below your selection.

(

) Consent to Magistrate Judge Jurisdiction
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), I voluntarily consent to have a
United States magistrate judge conduct all further proceedings in this case, including trial and
entry of final judgment. I understand that appeal from the judgment shall be taken directly to the
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
OR
(

)

Decline Magistrate Judge Jurisdiction
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), I decline to have a United States
magistrate judge conduct all further proceedings in this case and I hereby request that this case be
reassigned to a United States district judge.
DATE:

_______________________

19

NAME:
COUNSEL FOR
(OR “PRO SE”):

20
21

Signature

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ORDER (No. 16-cv-00920-LB)

3