Hard Drive Productions, Inc. v. Does 1-84

Filing 20

ORDER. Signed by Judge Hamilton on 10/18/2011. (pjhlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/18/2011)

Download PDF
1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 6 7 HARD DRIVE PRODUCTIONS, INC., Plaintiff, 8 9 v. ORDER DOES 1-84, 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 No. C 11-3648 PJH Defendants. _______________________________/ 12 13 The instant action was recently reassigned to the undersigned judge, following the 14 filing of defendant “alleged Doe"’s notice of “non-consent” to the underlying 15 magistrate judge’s jurisdiction. The court is also in receipt of plaintiff’s objection to the 16 reassignment. The court has reviewed plaintiff’s objection and agrees with plaintiff that, 17 since defendant is a Doe defendant whose identity is unknown and who has yet to be 18 served with process in the underlying action, defendant’s standing to decline the magistrate 19 judge’s jurisdiction is unclear. Reassignment to the undersigned is therefore improper, until 20 defendant Doe’s identity has been determined, and service of process has been either 21 made upon the identified Doe defendant, or waived by the same. 22 The clerk is therefore directed to reassign the matter back to the magistrate judge 23 originally assigned to this action. 24 IT IS SO ORDERED. 25 Dated: October 18, 2011 26 27 28 ______________________________ PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON United States District 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?