Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_01-cv-00540/USCOURTS-azd-2_01-cv-00540-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Breach of Contract

---

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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

GameTech International, Inc., 

Plaintiff/Counterdefendant, 

vs.

Trend Gaming Systems, L.L.C., 

Defendant/Counterclaimant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 01-540-PHX-JAT

ORDER

The Court, being satisfied that the parties have established Federal subject matter

jurisdiction (Doc. #641), will now consider Trend Gaming System’s, L.L.C.’s motion to

reassign this case to a Magistrate Judge. As Judge Rosenblatt’s order of October 14, 2008

recounts in greater detail, this case was originally assigned to Judge Rosenblatt. Thereafter,

based on the consent of the parties, it was reassigned to Magistrate Judge Anderson. The

case was then tried before the Magistrate Judge, appealed (directly to the Ninth Circuit Court

of Appeals) and reversed and remanded. On remand, a party sought reassignment to a

District Judge. The Magistrate Judge prepared an R&R for Judge Rosenblatt (because he

was the District Judge to whom this case was assigned before consent) recommending that

Judge Rosenblatt find that Magistrate Judge jurisdiction continued after remand. In his Order

of October 14, 2008, Judge Rosenblatt accepted this recommendation.

Thereafter, for reasons unknown to the undersigned, the Magistrate Judge recused and

ordered that this case be reassigned to a District Judge. Now, as indicated above, Trend

Case 2:01-cv-00540-ECV Document 643 Filed 12/12/08 Page 1 of 2
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 -

Gaming has moved to have this case reassigned to a Magistrate Judge based on Judge

Rosenblatt’s Order that Magistrate Judge jurisdiction continued following remand.

Consistent with Judge Rosenblatt’s order, this Court will grant reassignment to a

Magistrate Judge based on the parties’ continued consent post-appeal. Additionally, this

Court does not find GameTech’s unsupported argument that recusal by a Magistrate Judge

revokes consent to proceed before a Magistrate Judge to be persuasive. Specifically, this

Court does not agree that recusal by a particular Magistrate Judge would revoke a party’s

consent to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction. Thus, this Court will not retain the case before a

District Judge on that basis either. Therefore,

IT IS ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall reassign this case to a Magistrate

Judge (hereby granting Doc. #636).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the motion for a pretrial scheduling conference

(Doc. #635) remains pending.

DATED this 12th day of December, 2008.

Case 2:01-cv-00540-ECV Document 643 Filed 12/12/08 Page 2 of 2