Ricardo Jose Calderon Lopez v. Tigran Gumushyan et al

Filing 108

ORDER by Judge Laurel Beeler regarding ECF Nos. 100, 101, 107. Mr. Lopez already consented to magistrate-judge jurisdiction and, absent good cause or extraordinary circumstances, he cannot withdraw it. His declination at ECF No. 100 is therefore ineffective. (lblc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/9/2017)

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
12

RICARDO JOSE CALDERON LOPEZ,

Case No. 16-cv-07236-LB

Plaintiff,

13
v.

14
15

TIGRAN GUMUSHYAN, et al.,
Defendants.

16

ORDER DENYING THE PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO WITHDRAW CONSENT
TO MAGISTRATE JURISDICTION
Re: ECF Nos. 100, 101, 107

17
Ricardo Calderon Lopez filed this civil rights case in the Central District of California.1 The

18
19

case was then transferred to this district and assigned to Magistrate Judge Westmore.2 Mr. Lopez

20

consented to magistrate-judge jurisdiction.3 The case was then related to Lopez v. Commissioner of

21

Social Security, 16-cv-02732-LB, and reassigned to the undersigned.4 Mr. Lopez now wants to

22

withdraw his consent to magistrate jurisdiction — he filed a form purporting to decline magistrate-

23
24
25
26

Compl. – ECF No. 1. 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.
1

2

27
28

Order Transferring Case – ECF No. 76; see also ECF No. 77.

3

Consent – ECF No. 82.

4

Related Case Order – ECF No. 84.

ORDER — No. 16-cv-07236-LB

1

judge jurisdiction.5 The defendants filed an administrative motion opposing Mr. Lopez’s

2

declination;6 Mr. Lopez effectively replied in an administrative motion of his own.7
A party to a federal civil action generally has a constitutional right to proceed before an Article

3

III judge. Dixon v. Ylst, 990 F.2d 478, 479 (9th Cir. 1993). This right can be waived, however, so

5

that parties can “consent to trial before a magistrate judge.” Id. at 479–80. Consent to magistrate-

6

judge jurisdiction can only be withdrawn for good cause or under extraordinary circumstances. Id.

7

at 480. Indeed, “[t]here is no absolute right, in a civil case, to withdraw consent to trial and other

8

proceedings before a magistrate judge.” Id. “In ruling on a motion to withdraw consent, courts

9

consider factors including timeliness, whether granting the motion would unduly interfere with or

10

delay the proceedings, the burdens and costs to litigants, and whether consent was voluntary and

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

4

uncoerced.” Quinn v. Centerplate, No. 14-cv-01254 NC, 2014 WL 2860666, at *3 (N.D. Cal. June

12

23, 2014) (citing United States v. Neville, 985 F.2d 992, 1000 (9th Cir. 1993)).
Here, Mr. Lopez argues that he has a constitutional right to demand an Article III judge. 8 In

13
14

light of his appeal of the related, social-security-benefits case, he states that “[t]he filing of a

15

[n]otice of [a]ppeal is an event of jurisdictional significance — it confers [j]urisdiction on the

16

court of appeals and divest[s] the [d]istrict [c]ourt of its control over those aspects of the case

17

involved in the appeal.”9 Therefore, according to Mr. Lopez, he has a right to decline (or

18

withdraw) consent to magistrate jurisdiction.
Mr. Lopez’s argument does not demonstrate good cause or extraordinary circumstances

19
20

warranting the withdrawal of his consent. Allowing withdrawal now would delay the proceedings

21

and burden the parties by reassigning the case to a third judge. It would also interfere with the

22

proceedings because this case is related to Mr. Lopez’s social-security appeal, over which the

23
24
5

Declination – ECF No. 100.

6

Administrative Motion in Opposition – ECF No. 101.

7

See ECF No. 107.

27

8

Id. at 4.

28

9

Id. (citing Griggs v. Provident Consumer Discount Co., 459 U.S. 56, 58 (1982)).

25
26

ORDER — No. 16-cv-07236-LB

2

1

undersigned presides. And Mr. Lopez does not make any showing that his consent was

2

involuntary or coerced. His appeal in the related case does not change the outcome.

3
4
5

Mr. Lopez’s declination to magistrate-judge declination is therefore ineffective; he already
consented and, absent good cause or extraordinary circumstances, must stick with that election.
This disposes of ECF Nos. 100, 101, and 107.

6
7

IT IS SO ORDERED.

8

Dated: March 9, 2017
______________________________________
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-07236-LB

3