Edwards v. Kootenai County et al

Filing 21

ORDER ASSIGNING CASE TO A UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that this matter is referred to a United States Magistrate Judge. Signed by Judge B. Lynn Winmill. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by (st)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO

NICHOLAS EDWARDS,
Case No. 2:17-cv-00418-BLW
Plaintiff,

ORDER ASSIGNING CASE TO A
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE
JUDGE

v.
KOOTENAI COUNTY;
KOOTENAICOUNTY SHERIFF’S
OFFICE ANDCORRECTIONAL
HEALTHCARECOMPANIES, Inc., a
Colorado corporation;
CORRECTIONAL HEALTHCARE
MANAGEMENT, a Delaware
corporation; CORRECT CARE
SOLUTIONS, LLC, a Tennessee Limited
Liability Company, XYZ
CORPORATION, XYZ LIMITED
LIABILITY COMPANY AND/OR XYZ
PARTNERSHIP, BEN WOLFINGER,
Sheriff of Kootenai County, Idaho;
ALANNA VESSER; and DOES 1-20,
each in their personal and representative
capacities,
Defendants.

INTRODUCTION
All named parties to this action have consented to a United States Magistrate.
Plaintiff, however, has also sued three fictitious entities: XYZ Corporation, XZY Limited
Liability Company, and XYZ Partnership. These entities have not consented; they have
not even been identified. As explained below, the Court concludes that for purposes of
ORDER ASSIGNING CASE TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE- 1

28 U.S.C. § 636(c), all consents are in and the case should therefore be assigned to a
United States Magistrate Judge.
ANALYSIS
The Ninth Circuit recently held that the absence of consents from named, but
unserved, defendants deprives a magistrate judge of jurisdiction to dismiss a complaint.
See Williams v. King, 875 F.3d 500, 504 (9th Cir. 2017). The court reasoned that the
language of the consent statute, 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), 1 “conveys that any party’s objection
is sufficient to prevent jurisdiction from vesting in the magistrate judge.” Id. Thus, the
court held that “jurisdiction cannot vest until the court has received consent from all the
parties to an action.” Id.
Williams logically does not apply to fictitious defendants. Fictitious parties are
not named parties, after all. Rather, the plaintiff is alleging that he does not yet know
who these entities might be. Presumably, if plaintiff identifies any additional parties
during discovery, he will attempt to add them. And if he does so, the District’s Local
Rules handle that situation: Local Rule 73.1(a) requires the Clerk to send consent forms
to newly appearing defendants. See Dist. Idaho Local R. 73.1(a). Thus, newly appearing
defendants will be informed and given the opportunity to consent. If newly appearing
defendants do not consent, 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(4) comes into play. It provides that a

1

Section 636(c)(1) provides, in relevant part: “Upon the consent of the parties, a . . . United
States magistrate judge . . . may conduct any or all proceedings in a jury or nonjury civil matter and order
the entry of judgment in the case, when specially designated to exercise such jurisdiction by the district
court . . . .”
ORDER ASSIGNING CASE TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE- 2

district court may vacate the reference to a magistrate judge for good cause shown. See
28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(4).
Thus, the District’s local rules, in combination with 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(4),
anticipate and deal with what could otherwise be a troubling situation. As one court has
explained,
The need for unanimous consent sets a trap that may be sprung when
parties join the case after the litigants have opted for decision by a
magistrate judge. For then the newly arrived party may assume that the
original choice is conclusive; or everyone may overlook the problem. But
the original choice is not dispositive. Unless the latecomer, too, consents,
the whole proceeding before the magistrate judge may be set at naught.
Mark I, Inc. v. Gruber, 38 F.3d 369 (7th Cir. 1994) (Easterbrook, J.).
The Court is satisfied that its local rules will prevent the trap from being sprung.
It will therefore assign this matter to a magistrate for all purposes. If subsequently
appearing parties do not consent, they may file a motion in district court to vacate the
reference.
ORDER
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that this matter is referred to a United States
Magistrate Judge.

DATED: April 2, 2018

_________________________
B. Lynn Winmill
Chief U.S. District Court Judge

ORDER ASSIGNING CASE TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE- 3