Hoppe, II et al v. Percheron Associates, LLC et al

Filing 21

ORDER. The Consent To The Exercise of Jurisdiction By a United States Magistrate Judge 19 filed 2/27/2012, is REJECTED without prejudice. By Judge Robert E. Blackburn on 2/29/2012. (sah, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Robert E. Blackburn
Civil Action No. 11-cv-03233-REB-CBS
ROGER HOPPE II, a resident of Michigan,
Plaintiff,
v.
PERCHERON ASSOCIATES, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, and
RONDA S. CANTER, an individual and resident of Massachusetts,
Defendants

ORDER
Blackburn, J.
The matter is before me for consideration on the Consent To The Exercise of
Jurisdiction By a United States Magistrate Judge [#19]1 filed February 27, 2012, by
the defendants. I construe the notice as an attempt by the defendants to consent to the
disposition by a United States Magistrate Judge. However, the putative consent of the
defendants does not conform to the requirements of D.C.COLO.LCivR 72.2D.
The notice and consent of the defendants implicate 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1), Fed.
R. Civ. P. 73, and D.C.COLO.LCivR 72.2D. In relevant part, 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1)
provides:
Upon the consent of the parties, a full-time United States
magistrate judge or a part-time United States magistrate
judge who serves as a full-time judicial officer may conduct
any or all proceedings in a jury or nonjury civil matter and
order the entry of judgment in the case, when specially
1

“[#19]” is an example of the convention I use to identify the docket number assigned to a specific
paper by the court’s electronic case filing and management system (CM/ECF). I use this convention
throughout this order.

designated to exercise such jurisdiction by the district court
or courts he serves.
Relatedly and relevantly, Fed. R. Civ. P. 73(a) provides:
Trial by Consent. When authorized under 28 U.S.C. §
636(c), a magistrate judge may, if all parties consent,
conduct a civil action or proceeding, including a jury or
nonjury trial.
Finally, D.C.COLO.LCivR 72.2D., which was amended effective December 1,
2011, provides:
Unanimous Consent; Determination. To consent to the
jurisdiction of a magistrate judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c),
all parties shall complete and file a Consent to the Exercise
of Jurisdiction by a United States Magistrate Judge form
(see Appendix M).
If the defendants intend to consent voluntarily to have the United States
magistrate judge currently assigned to this case conduct all further proceedings in the
case, including the trial, then they must voluntarily and knowingly complete and sign the
“Consent to the Exercise of Jurisdiction by a United States Magistrate Judge” that
appears at the bottom of the “Notice of Availability of a United States Magistrate Judge
To Exercise Jurisdiction,” which is Appendix M to the Local Rules of Practice of the
United States District Court for the District of Colorado-Civil, as amended effective
December 1, 2011.
THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED as follows:
1. That the Consent To The Exercise of Jurisdiction By a United States
Magistrate Judge [#19] filed February 27, 2012, is REJECTED without prejudice; and
2. That if the defendants intend to consent voluntarily to have the United States

2

magistrate judge currently assigned to this case conduct all further proceedings in the
case, including the trial, then defendants must voluntarily and knowingly complete and
sign the “Consent to the Exercise of Jurisdiction by a United States Magistrate Judge”
that appears at the bottom of the “Notice of Availability of a United States Judge To
Exercise Jurisdiction,” which is Appendix M to the Local Rules of Practice of the United
States District Court for the District of Colorado-Civil, as amended effective December
1, 2011, in the time specified in D.C.COLO.LCivR 72.2D.
Dated February 29, 2012, at Denver, Colorado.
BY THE COURT:

3