Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-01233/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-01233-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Contract Default

---

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 Bertucci, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

GES Exposition Services, an Arizona

corporation; Marriott International, Inc., a

Delaware corporation; J.W. Marriott

Desert Ridge and Spa, an Arizona business

entity,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-06-1233-PHX-LOA

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

On February 26, 2007, this Court entered an order that Plaintiff shall either

consent to magistrate judge jurisdiction in writing or elect to proceed before a district judge

by March 9, 2007. (docket # 23) To date, Plaintiff has not complied with the Court's

February 26, 2007 Order.

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 [they] 'be construed to secure the just, speedy and inexpensive

Case 2:06-cv-01233-FJM Document 28 Filed 03/19/07 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 -

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). Plaintiff'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 rule on a dispositive motion. 28

U.S.C. §636(b)(1)(A). The Magistrates Act 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 elect a district judge. Kofoed v. IBEW, Local

48, 237 F.3d 1001, 1004 (9th Cir.2001); Fed. R. Civ. 73(b), advisory committee note.

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, 913-14 (9th

Cir.2003) (pointing out that consent is the "touchstone of magistrate [judge] jurisdiction"

under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)). 

Pursuant to Rule 41(b), FED.R.CIV.P., and 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, 

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff show cause in writing on or before March 30,

2007 why she and/or her counsel should not be sanctioned and/or be held in contempt of

court pursuant to Title 18 U.S.C. § 401 and 28 U.S.C. § 636(e) for failing to comply with the

Court’s prior order. If Plaintiff properly complies with the Court’s February 26, 2007 Order

on or before 5:00 p.m. on Friday, March 30, 2007 by either consenting to magistrate judge

Case 2:06-cv-01233-FJM Document 28 Filed 03/19/07 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 -

jurisdiction or electing to have the case assigned to a district judge, the undersigned will

automatically discharge and vacate this OSC.

DATED this 19th day of March, 2007.

Case 2:06-cv-01233-FJM Document 28 Filed 03/19/07 Page 3 of 3