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)

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