Erickson Productions Inc et al v. Kraig R Kast

Filing 450

ORDER DENYING 448 MOTION TO WITHDRAW CONSENT TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE JURISDICTION. Signed by Chief Judge Richard Seeborg on April 26, 2023. (rslc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/26/2023)Any non-CM/ECF Participants have been served by First Class Mail to the addresses of record listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
ERICKSON PRODUCTIONS INC, et al.,

10

Case No. 13-cv-05472-DMR (RS)

Plaintiffs,
11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

v.
12
KRAIG RUDINGER KAST, et al.,

13

Defendants.

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
WITHDRAW CONSENT TO
MAGISTRATE JUDGE
JURISDICTION

14
15
16

Pro se Defendant Kraig Kast has filed a motion to withdraw consent to magistrate judge

17

jurisdiction; the motion has been referred to the undersigned as the Duty Judge. By way of

18

procedural background, the parties originally consented to magistrate judge jurisdiction in January

19

2014. See Dkts. 26, 27. A jury trial was held before a magistrate judge in April 2015, and

20

judgment was entered against Defendant. Four years later, a Ninth Circuit panel affirmed in part,

21

reversed in part, and remanded. See Dkt. 347. On remand, the case was reassigned to a different

22

magistrate judge,1 and judgment was again entered against Defendant, though without a jury trial.

23

On April 5, 2023, the Ninth Circuit reversed this decision in a memorandum opinion and

24

remanded for “a new [jury] trial to determine willfulness and statutory damages.” Dkt. 447, at 6.
This motion followed. Defendant argues “the Magistrate’s [sic] decisions . . . deprived

25
26
27
28

1

Defendant at this point filed a declination to magistrate judge jurisdiction, see Dkt. 352, but did
not formally move to withdraw his consent.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

1

[him] of his Constitutional rights,” violated various statutes, “allowed the Plaintiffs’ attorneys to

2

engage in fundamental procedural abuses in the first trial,” and involved “multiple procedural

3

errors in a remand,” among other things. Dkt. 448, at 8. These decisions, Defendant argues,

4

“unquestionably” constitute “extraordinary circumstances that provide good cause” to justify his

5

withdrawal of consent. Id.

6

While the motion is timely, see United States v. Mortensen, 860 F.2d 948, 950 (9th Cir.

7

1988), in substance it appears to reflect little more than “mere dissatisfaction with a magistrate

8

judge’s decision[s]” (or, more accurately, with the decisions of several magistrate judges). Branch

9

v. Umphenour, 936 F.3d 994, 1004 (9th Cir. 2019). Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(4), a movant must

10

demonstrate “good cause” and/or “extraordinary circumstances” to justify withdrawal of consent

11

to magistrate judge jurisdiction, a standard the Ninth Circuit has called “a high bar that is difficult

12

to satisfy.” Id. (quoting Savoca v. United States, 199 F. Supp. 3d 716, 721 (S.D.N.Y. 2016)). On

13

the current record, Defendant fails to meet this bar. The motion is therefore denied.

14

Defendant further moves to transfer the location of the trial to the San Francisco Division,

15

rather than the Oakland Division, citing the inconvenience and expense of traveling to Oakland.

16

Determination of this motion is reserved for the assigned magistrate judge to decide.

17
18

IT IS SO ORDERED.

19
20
21
22

Dated: April 26, 2023
______________________________________
RICHARD SEEBORG
Chief United States District Judge

23
24
25
26
27
28

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO WITHDRAW CONSENT TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE JURISDICTION
CASE NO. 13-cv-05472-DMR

2