Torres v. Botanic Tonics, LLC et al

Filing 98

Order by Judge Vince Chhabria denying 84 Motion to Reassign Case. (vclc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/5/2024)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ROMULO TORRES, et al., Case No. 23-cv-01460-VC Plaintiffs, ORDER DENYING MOTION TO REASSIGN CASE v. BOTANIC TONICS, LLC, et al., Re: Dkt. No. 84 Defendants. The Motion to Reassign the Case to Judge Hixon is denied. As the defendants acknowledge, even if the plaintiffs are not entitled to adjudication by an Article III judge, the Court can retain the case for good cause. See Dkt. No. 84 at 4. And there is good cause to deny the transfer request. First, this Court has already decided a motion to dismiss and set a case schedule. The defendants argue that this is irrelevant to judicial efficiency, because the motion to dismiss was on a “pure legal issue” that’s “unique to 7-Eleven in the context of this case.” Id. at 5. But in the almost six months that the Court has had the case, it has become familiar with the parties and the pleadings, as well as some of the legal issues. Moreover, it certified the motion to dismiss order for appeal. It would be judicially inefficient to reassign the case at this point. Second, the circumstances of the final two defendants’ consent, and the circumstances of the plaintiffs’ revocation of their consent, suggest that the Court’s procedures for obtaining consent to magistrate jurisdiction are being manipulated. The two defendants whose lack of consent caused the case to be reassigned to a district judge waited four months before filing their consent. There is nothing inherently wrong with that. But the consents were filed on the docket promptly after the defendants learned that the Court would be denying 7-Eleven’s motion to dismiss. Moreover, at the Case Management Conference earlier on the same day, the defendants orally indicated their consent, and the plaintiffs orally revoked their consent. Although the Court would have denied the motion to reassign the case in any event, these circumstances further counsel in favor of denial. This ruling also applies to the other action in this consolidated case, C.C. v. Botanic Tonics, LLC., No. 23-cv-04136-VC. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: February 5, 2024 ______________________________________ VINCE CHHABRIA United States District Judge 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?