Vista Food Exchange, Inc. v. Lawson Foods, LLC

Filing 223

ORDER denying 221 MOTION Revised Motion on Jurisdiction of Magistrate Judge to Hear and Determine Damages Inquest and Enter Final Order and for Entry of Order Referring the Remaining Proceedings to Judge Sarah Netburn. For the reasons above, Plaintiff's motion is DENIED. If the parties wish to consent to Judge Netburn's jurisdiction for all purposes, including entry of judgment, they must do so pursuant to a new Consent to Jurisdiction indicating as much. See Dkt. 220. The Co urt advises the parties that they "are free to withhold consent without adverse substantive consequences." Stevens, 832 F.3d at 153. Unless a new Consent to Jurisdiction is filed, the Parties will proceed with the inquest before Judge Netburn pursuant to the Amended Order of Reference, Dkt. 209. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to close the motion at Dkt. 221. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Andrew L. Carter, Jr on 4/9/2021) (mml)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
-----------------------------------------------------------------:x
:
VISTA FOOD EXCHANGE, INC,
:
:
Plaintiff,
:
:
v.
:
LAWSON FOODS, LLC,
:
:
Defendants.
:
:
----------------------------------------------------------------- :x
ANDREW L. CARTER, JR., District Judge:

1:17-cv-07454-ALC-SN
ORDER

The Court is in receipt of the April 7, 2021 motion from Plaintiff Vista Food Exchange,
Inc. requesting an order enforcing the parties’ Notice, Consent, and Reference of a Dispositive
Motion to a Magistrate Judge, Dkts. 166, 171 (“July 2019 Consent to Jurisdiction”), among other
relief. Dkt. 221. The Court DENIES this motion because, contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion, the
remaining proceedings are beyond the scope of the July 2019 Consent to Jurisdiction.
28 U.S.C. § 636 provides that a Magistrate Judge may, “[u]pon the consent of the parties,
. . . 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 or courts
he serves.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1). “Such consent may be express or implied, see, Roell v. Withrow,
538 U.S. 580, 585, 588, 123 S. Ct. 1696, 155 L. Ed. 2d 775 (2003); but unless there is such consent
by all of the parties, ‘the Magistrate Judge lack[s] authority to enter judgment,’ Yeldon v. Fisher,
710 F.3d 452, 453-54 (2d Cir. 2013).” Stevens, Hinds & White, P.C. v. Fisher, Byrialsen & Kreizer,
PLLC (In re McCray, Richardson, Santana, Wise, & Salaam Litig.), 832 F.3d 150, 153 (2d Cir.
2016).
The July 2019 Consent to Jurisdiction provides: “The·following parties consent to have a

1

United States magistrate judge conduct any and all proceedings and enter a final order as to each
motion identified below: Motion for contempt, and sanctions against Fortress Foods, LLC, Lawson
Foods, LLC, and Simon Law that was the subject of evidentiary hearing before Judge Netburn on
July 16, 2019”. Dkts. 166, 171 (emphases added). On November 1, 2019, Judge Netburn entered
a final order resolving the motion for contempt in favor of Plaintiff. Dkt. 172. The proceedings at
this stage of the case—and the relief requested by Plaintiff—are clearly beyond the scope of the
parties’ consent for Judge Netburn to “conduct any and all proceedings and enter a final order as
to” the motion for contempt. Accordingly, the July 2019 Consent to Jurisdiction provides no basis
for the Court to confirm that Judge Netburn has jurisdiction to “make all determinations, and enter
the final order in this action”, as Plaintiff requests. Mot. at 8.
For the reasons above, Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED. If the parties wish to consent to Judge
Netburn’s jurisdiction for all purposes, including entry of judgment, they must do so pursuant to a
new Consent to Jurisdiction indicating as much. See Dkt. 220. The Court advises the parties that
they “are free to withhold consent without adverse substantive consequences.” Stevens, 832 F.3d
at 153. Unless a new Consent to Jurisdiction is filed, the Parties will proceed with the inquest
before Judge Netburn pursuant to the Amended Order of Reference, Dkt. 209. The Clerk of Court
is respectfully directed to close the motion at Dkt. 221.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: April 9, 2021
New York, New York

ANDREW L. CARTER, JR.
United States District Judge

2