Aerofund Holdings, Inc. v. Brown et al

Filing 22

Order Discharging 16 Order to Show Cause, Vacating Initial Case Management Conference; Order of Reassignment to District Judge. Signed by Judge Virginia K. DeMarchi on 11/17/2020. (vkdlc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/17/2020)

Case 5:20-cv-03747-VKD Document 22 Filed 11/17/20 Page 1 of 2

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6

SAN JOSE DIVISION

7
8

AEROFUND HOLDINGS, INC.,
Plaintiff,

9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

Case No. 20-cv-03747-VKD

v.
LISA BASSHAM BROWN, et al.,
Defendants.

ORDER DISCHARGING ORDER TO
SHOW CAUSE, VACATING INITIAL
CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE
ORDER OF REASSIGNMENT TO
DISTRICT JUDGE

13
14

On September 4, 2020, the Court granted plaintiff Aerofund Holdings, Inc.’s (“Aerofund”)

15

request to continue the initial case management conference from September 8, 2020 to November

16

17, 2020. Dkt. No. 9. The Court ordered the parties to submit a joint case management statement

17

that complies with all applicable Civil Local Rules and Standing Orders by November 10, 2020.

18

Id. at 2. Defendants have not appeared in this action or consented to magistrate judge jurisdiction.

19

No party filed a case management statement by the November 10 deadline. The Court issued an

20

order to show cause why the action should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. Dkt. No. 16.

21

In its show cause response, Aerofund states that it has reached a settlement agreement with

22

defendants Lisa Bassham Brown, MBROWN Tech Services, MBrown Tech Services, LLC, and

23

Mike Brown, and that those defendants stipulate to entry of judgment. Dkt. No. 18 ¶¶ 4-8; Dkt.

24

No. 20. Aerofund additionally states that it has reached a settlement agreement with defendant

25

LMI Systems LLC which the parties are reducing to writing. Id. ¶ 9. Aerofund’s counsel

26

attributes Aerofund’s failure to file a case management statement or seek relief from pending

27

deadlines to counsel’s “inadvertence.” Id. ¶¶ 4, 10. Based on the representations made in

28

Aerofund’s response, the Court discharges the order to show cause.

Case 5:20-cv-03747-VKD Document 22 Filed 11/17/20 Page 2 of 2

1

As none of the defendants has appeared in the action or consented to magistrate judge

2

jurisdiction, the Court has authority to act only on non-dispositive matters in this action. Absent

3

the consent of all parties, this Court does not have jurisdiction over the action generally and may

4

not enter judgment against a party. Rather, the action must be referred to a district judge for this

5

purpose. 28 U.S.C. § 636; Williams v. King, 875 F.3d 500 (9th Cir. 2017). Accordingly, it is

6

ordered that this case be reassigned to a district judge. All pending motions, including Aerofund’s

7

request for entry of a stipulated judgment, will be decided by the newly assigned judge. All

8

scheduled appearances are hereby vacated and will be reset by the newly assigned judge.

9
10

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: November 17, 2020

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
VIRGINIA K. DEMARCHI
United States Magistrate Judge

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2