Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-00920/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-00920-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 450
Nature of Suit: Interstate Commerce
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question: Breach of Contract

---

ORDER (No. 16-cv-00920-LB)

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

San Francisco Division

GLOBAL QUALITY FOODS, INC.,

Plaintiff.

v.

VAN HOEKELEN GREENHOUSES, INC.,

Defendant.

Case No. 16-cv-00920-LB 

NOTICE REGARDING CONSENT TO 

JURISDICTION OF UNITED STATES 

MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Re: ECF No. 26

The initial complaint in this action was filed on February 24, 2016. (ECF No. 1.) 1 Under

General Order 44, the case was assigned randomly to the undersigned to conduct all proceedings. 

28 U.S.C. § 636(c) requires the consent of all parties before the court can address the case on the 

merits. The plaintiff and the defendant both consented. (ECF Nos. 7 and 16.) Thereafter, the 

defendant filed a third-party complaint against Total Quality Logistics. (ECF No. 17.) Total 

Quality Logistics moved to dismiss the complaint for improper venue under Federal Rule 

12(b)(3). (ECF No. 26.) It did not file a signed consent to the court’s jurisdiction. 

There is a split of authority about whether venue motions are dispositive. The court has not 

researched the issue exhaustively but, for various reasons, the district’s practice is to ask for a 

signed consent or declination before addressing a substantive motion. Any party is free to 

withhold consent without substantive consequences. If the parties do not consent, likely the case 

 

1 Record citations refer to material in the Electronic Case File (“ECF”); pinpoint citations are to 

the ECF-generated page numbers at the top of documents.

Case 3:16-cv-00920-LB Document 34 Filed 08/01/16 Page 1 of 3
ORDER (No. 16-cv-00920-LB) 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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

will be randomly assigned to a district judge of this court.

This obviously poses an issue with the pending hearing on August 4. If Total Quality Logistics

files its consent by tomorrow, August 2, the court will be able to address the motion on August 4. 

Alternatively, counsel may need time to consult with the client. If that is so, then the court would 

continue the hearing for a week (or to any subsequent Thursday that is convenient for counsel). 

Either way, the court asks Total Quality Logistics to either file its consent or declination or update 

the court about its timeline by 5:30 p.m. on August 2. 

Dated: August 1, 2016

______________________________________

LAUREL BEELER

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:16-cv-00920-LB Document 34 Filed 08/01/16 Page 2 of 3
ORDER (No. 16-cv-00920-LB) 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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

GLOBAL QUALITY FOODS, INC.,

Plaintiff.

v.

VAN HOEKELEN GREENHOUSES, INC,

Defendant.

Case No. 16-cv-00920-LB 

CONSENT OR DECLINATION 

TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

JURISDICTION

INSTRUCTIONS: Please indicate below by checking one of the two boxes whether you (if you are the party) 

or the party you represent (if you are an attorney in the case) choose(s) to consent or decline magistrate judge 

jurisdiction in this matter. Sign this form below your selection.

( ) Consent to Magistrate Judge Jurisdiction

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), I voluntarily consent to have a 

United States magistrate judge conduct all further proceedings in this case, including trial and 

entry of final judgment. I understand that appeal from the judgment shall be taken directly to the 

United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

OR

( ) Decline Magistrate Judge Jurisdiction

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), I decline to have a United States 

magistrate judge conduct all further proceedings in this case and I hereby request that this case be 

reassigned to a United States district judge.

DATE: _______________________ NAME:

COUNSEL FOR 

(OR “PRO SE”): 

Signature

Case 3:16-cv-00920-LB Document 34 Filed 08/01/16 Page 3 of 3