Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-01906/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-01906-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 950
Nature of Suit: Constitutionality of State Statutes
Cause of Action: 05:0554 Constitutionality of Maritime Statutes

---

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

The consent/election form may be obtained directly from the Clerk of the Court or

by accessing the District of Arizona’s web site at www.azd.uscourts.gov. To 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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Stealing Home, is an Arizona Limited

Liability Company,

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Supper Solutions Franchising, Inc., a

Colorado Corporation; John and Jane Does

1-10,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-06-1906-PHX-LOA

NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT

AND ORDER

Pursuant to Local Rule 3.8(a), LRCiv, Rules of Practice, effective December

1, 2005, all civil cases are, and will be, randomly assigned to a U.S. district judge or to a U.S.

magistrate judge. This matter has been assigned to the undersigned U.S. Magistrate Judge.

 As a result of the aforesaid Local Rule and assignment, if all parties consent

in writing, the case will remain with the assigned Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

636(c)(1) for all purposes, including trial and final entry of judgment. If any party chooses

the district judge option, the case will be randomly reassigned to a U.S. district judge. To

either consent to the assigned magistrate judge or to elect to have the case heard before a

district judge, the appropriate section of the form, entitled Consent To Exercise Of

Jurisdiction By United States Magistrate Judge1

, must be completed, signed and filed. The

Case 2:06-cv-01906-LOA Document 5 Filed 08/08/06 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 form.

- 2 -

party filing the case or removing it to this Court is responsible for serving all parties with the

consent forms. Each party must file a completed consent form and certificate of service with

the Clerk of the Court not later than 20 days after entry of appearance, and must serve a copy

by mail or hand delivery upon all parties of record in the case.

Any party is free to withhold consent to magistrate judge jurisdiction 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, 913-14 (9th Cir. 2003) (pointing out that consent is

the "touchstone of magistrate [judge] jurisdiction" under 28 U.S.C. §636(c).

A review of the Court’s file indicates that Plaintiff's Complaint was filed on

 August 3, 2006. Plaintiff shall have until August 24, 2006 within which to make its

selection to either consent to magistrate judge jurisdiction or elect to proceed before a United

States district judge. It is unknown if a copy of the appropriate consent form electronically

transmitted to Plaintiff's counsel on August 3, 2006 by the Clerk's office was served with the

Complaint per the written instructions from the Clerk.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff shall file on or before August 24, 2006 its

written election to either consent to magistrate judge jurisdiction or elect to proceed before

a United States district judge.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff shall serve upon the Defendants

the appropriate consent form provided at the time of the filing of its Complaint at the time

of service of its Complaint upon the Defendants. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants, and each of them, shall either

consent to magistrate judge jurisdiction or elect to proceed before a district judge within

twenty (20) days of each Defendant’s formal appearance herein.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that counsel and any party, if unrepresented,

shall hereinafter comply with the Rules of Practice for the United States District Court for

Case 2:06-cv-01906-LOA Document 5 Filed 08/08/06 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

- 3 -

the District of Arizona, as amended on December 1, 2005. The District’s Rules of Practice

may be found on the District Court’s internet web page at www.azd.uscourts.gov/.

All other rules may be found as www.uscourts.gov/rules/. The fact that a party is acting pro

se does not discharge this party's duties to "abide by the rules of the court in which he

litigates." Carter v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 784 F.2d 1006, 1008 (9th Cir. 1986).

DATED this 7th day of August, 2006.

Case 2:06-cv-01906-LOA Document 5 Filed 08/08/06 Page 3 of 3