Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-00874/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-00874-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 720
Nature of Suit: Labor Management Relations Act
Cause of Action: 29:1145 E.R.I.S.A.

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

Page 2 of the Court’s Notice of Assignment states that Plaintiffs shall have until May

28, 2008 within which to file their consents to the exercise of jurisdiction by a United States

magistrate judge or elect to proceed before a United States district judge. However, page 3

Orders that Plaintiffs shall each file on or before May 8, 2008 their consents or elections.

The Court’s Notice of Assignment is dated May 12, 2008. 

It was the Court’s intent to give Plaintiffs until the May 28, 2008 deadline. Although

there is a discrepancy in the deadlines set forth in the Court’s Notice of Assignment, the last

deadline has passed with no consents or elections having been received by the Court. If

there was a question as to the discrepancies, counsel for Plaintiffs has not brought it to the

attention of the Court.

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Dean Wine, as trustee of the Plaintiff TaftHartley trust funds; Debra Margraf, as

trustee of the Plaintiff Taft-Hartley trust

funds; IBEW Local Union No. 640 and

Arizona Chapter NECA Health & Welfare

Fund, a Taft-Hartley trust; IBEW Local

Union No. 640 and Arizona Chapter

NECA Pension Fund, a Taft Hartley trust;

National Electrical Benefit Fund, a TaftHartley trust; Phoenix Electrical Industry

Joint Apprenticeship and Training

Committee, a Taft-Hartley trust;

Plaintiffs, 

vs.

SCH Electric L.L.C.,

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-08-0874-PHX-LOA

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

 This matter arises on the Court’s review of the file. Plaintiffs filed their

Complaint on May 7, 2008. (docket #1) On May 12, 2008, the Court issued a Notice of

Assignment and Order giving Plaintiffs until May 8, 20081

 within which to file their

Case 2:08-cv-00874-LOA Document 7 Filed 06/06/08 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 2 -

consents to the exercise of jurisdiction by a United States magistrate judge or elect to

proceed before a United States district judge. (docket #4) As of this date, Plaintiffs have

failed to file their written elections to either consent to magistrate judge jurisdiction or

elect to proceed before a United States district judge. 

The Civil Justice Reform Act of 1990 (“CJRA”), 28 U.S.C. § 471 et seq., 

mandates the early and on-going judicial management of the pretrial process. Under the

CJRA mandate, “[f]ederal trial courts are now required, by statute, to implement

techniques and strategies designed to dispose of cases in an efficient and inexpensive

manner.” See, Schwarzkopf Technologies Corp. v. Ingersoll Cutting Tool Co., 142

F.R.D. 420, 423 (D. Del.1992). Additionally, federal judges “are subject to the injunction

of Rule 1 [Federal Rules of Civil Procedure] that [the Rules] ‘be construed to secure the

just, speedy and inexpensive determination of every action.’ ” Herbert v. Lando, 441 U.S.

153, 177, 99 S.Ct. 1635, 1649, 60 L.Ed.2d 115 (1979) (emphasis added). Plaintiffs’

failure to timely comply with the Court’s prior order is frustrating the speedy and

inexpensive resolution of this case.

 Absent the express consent of all the parties, a United States magistrate judge

does not have the statutory or constitutional authority to try a civil case to judgment or

rule upon a dispositive motion. 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1)(A). The Magistrates Act, however,

permits magistrate judges to conduct all proceedings in civil cases if the parties expressly

consent: "Upon consent of the parties, a . . . United States magistrate judge . . . may

conduct any or all proceedings in a jury or non-jury 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." Hanson v. Mahoney, 433 F.3d. 1107, 1111 (9th Cir.

2006) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1)); Gomez v. United States, 490 U.S. 858, 865-872

(1989) (outlining the evolution of the Act). No precise written form is required to consent

to a magistrate judge or to elect an assignment of a civil case to a district judge. Kofoed v.

IBEW, Local 48, 237 F.3d 1001, 1004 (9th Cir.2001); Fed. R. Civ. 73(b), Advisory

Case 2:08-cv-00874-LOA Document 7 Filed 06/06/08 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2 One may also find the consent/election form on the District’s web site, click on “Local Rules”

at the top of the page, then click on “Forms” on the left side of the page and then click on and print the

appropriate form. Consent/election forms are not to be e-filed; rather, they are to be filed in paper form

with the Clerk's Office. ECF Policies and Procedure Manual, II, ¶ M at p.19.

- 3 -

Committee note. The Clerk, however, electronically provided Plaintiffs’ counsel with an

appropriate consent/election form on May 8, 2008.2

 Any party is free to withhold consent to magistrate judge jurisdiction and elect

to proceed before a district judge without adverse consequences. 28 U.S.C. 636(c)(2);

Rule 73(b), Fed.R.Civ.P.; Anderson v. Woodcreek Venture Ltd., 351 F.3d 911, 914 (9th

Cir.2003) (pointing out that consent is the “touchstone of magistrate judge jurisdiction”

under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)). 

 Pursuant to Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir. 1992) (trial

courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and in the exercise of that power,

they may impose or recommend sanctions including, where appropriate, dismissal of a

case without prejudice) and the Court’s inherent authority, 

 IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs show cause in writing on or before Friday,

June 20, 2008 why Plaintiffs and/or their counsel should not be sanctioned pursuant to

Title 18 U.S.C. § 401, 28 U.S.C. § 636(e) and/or the Court’s inherent authority for failing

to comply with the Court’s prior order. If Plaintiffs comply with the Court’s May 12,

2008 Order on or before 5:00 p.m. on Friday, June 20, 2008 or if Plaintiffs have

already done so but its consent or election has not yet been docketed by the Clerk, the

undersigned will automatically discharge and vacate this OSC without imposing any

sanctions.

DATED this 6th day of June, 2008.

 

Case 2:08-cv-00874-LOA Document 7 Filed 06/06/08 Page 3 of 3