Trouche v. Bank of America

Filing 6

ORDER VACATING HEARING PENDING CONSENT TO JURISDICTION OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE. Previously-noticed hearing date of 12/2/2010 re. Motion to Dismiss and Strike 5 filed by Bank of America has been VACATED, pending signed consents by all parties. Signed by Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu on 10/22/2010. (dmrlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/22/2010)

Download PDF
Trouche v. Bank of America Doc. 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CHARLOTTE TROUCHE, Plaintiff, v. BANK OF AMERICA, et al., Defendants. / No. C-10-04635-DMR ORDER VACATING HEARING ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS PENDING CONSENT TO JURISDICTION OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE On October 21, 2010, Defendant Bank of America filed a Motion to Dismiss and Motion to Strike ("Motion to Dismiss and Strike"), pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12. See Docket No. 5. Defendant noticed a hearing on the Motion to Dismiss and Strike for December 2, 2010 at 11:00 a.m. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(c), a signed consent to the jurisdiction of the Magistrate Judge must be filed by each party before consideration of any dispositive motion. The parties in the above-captioned case have not filed a signed consent to proceed before a Magistrate Judge. Accordingly, the hearing on Defendant's Motion to Dismiss and Strike set for December 2, 2010 at 11:00 a.m. is hereby VACATED. Upon the filing of signed consents by all parties to the action, the Court will issue an order resetting the hearing. If a declination is filed, the case will be immediately reassigned to an Article III District Judge. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: October 22, 2010 _______________________________ DONNA M. RYU United States Magistrate Judge

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?