Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-01918/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-01918-3/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

Patricia L. Spears and Suzanne Ross,

Plaintiffs, 

vs.

Scott H. Sacharow,

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-08-01918-PHX-LOA

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

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

Complaint on October 20, 2008, docket #1, and First Amended Complaint on December

1, 2008. (docket #12). Plaintiffs consented to the exercise of jurisdiction by a United

States magistrate judge on November 10, 2008. (docket # 8) On November 21, 2008,

the Court issued a Notice of Assignment and Order giving Defendant Scott H. Sacharow

until December 5, 2008 within which to file his consent to the exercise of jurisdiction by

a United States magistrate judge or elect to proceed before a United States district judge. 

(docket # 11) As of this date, Defendant Scott H. Sacharow has failed to file his written

election to either consent to magistrate judge jurisdiction nor 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

Case 2:08-cv-01918-MHM Document 15 Filed 12/18/08 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 -

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). Defendant’s

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

Committee note.

Defendant Scott H. Sacharow filed a Motion to Dismiss on November 13, 2008

(docket #10) and another Motion to Dismiss First Amended Complaint on December 15,

2008. (docket #14)

 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)). 

Case 2:08-cv-01918-MHM Document 15 Filed 12/18/08 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

- 3 -

 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.

 Accordingly,

 IT IS ORDERED that Defendant Scott H. Sacharow show cause in writing on

or before Wednesday, January 7, 2009 why Defendant 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 Defendant complies with

the Court’s November 21, 2008 Order on or before 5:00 p.m. on Wednesday, January

7, 2009 or if Defendant has 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 18th day of December, 2008.

 

Case 2:08-cv-01918-MHM Document 15 Filed 12/18/08 Page 3 of 3