Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-01839/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-01839-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 350
Nature of Suit: Motor Vehicle Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Personal Injury

---

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

The caption has been amended to reflect the dismissal 1

without prejudice of Defendant Victor Armenta, in light of Plaintiff’s

representations in the Joint Status Report that “Victor Armenta is

deceased,” that “[n]o estate is known to exist,” and that “Plaintiff

will dismiss without prejudice Victor Armenta given that he was at no

time a necessary party to this action [and] that his or his estate’s

absence from this action does not affect plaintiff’s claims against

his employer arising out of Mr. Armenta’s conduct during the course

and scope of his employment with Defendant Hoovestol, Inc.” (JSR at

2.) 

Additionally, since Plaintiff has not justified Doe

defendants remaining in this action, Does I through XX are dismissed. 

See Order Setting Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Conference filed

September 5, 2007 at 2 n.2 (indicating that if Plaintiff fails to set

forth in the JSR a date by when the identities of any "Doe" defendants

are expected to be discovered, the claims against Doe defendants would

be deemed abandoned and a dismissal order would follow).

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WILLIAM AIREHART, )

) 2:07-cv-01839-GEB-JFM

Plaintiff, )

) REASSIGNMENT ORDER

v. )

)

HOOVESTOL, INC., a Minnesota )

corporation; MAJOR TRANSPORT, INC.,)

a Minnesota corporation, )

)

Defendants. )

1

)

A Joint Status Report (“JSR”) was filed on February 5,

2008, stating “[t]he parties stipulate to a magistrate judge

handling all aspects of this matter to the extent authorized by 28

Case 2:07-cv-01839-JFM Document 13 Filed 02/14/08 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

U.S.C. §636(c).” See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c); L.R. 73-305(b). Local

Rule 73-305(b) prescribes “notwithstanding the consent of all

parties, the [United States District] Judge or Magistrate Judge may

reject the referral.” 

If the Magistrate Judge accepts the referral, this action

is reassigned to the Magistrate Judge on the date this Order is

filed. 

Dated: February 13, 2008

 

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

ACCEPTANCE OF REFERRAL

Pursuant to the parties’ consent and the approval of the

United States District Judge, I accept reassignment of this action for

all further proceedings, including entry of final judgment. All

documents hereafter filed shall be denominated as 

2:07-cv-01839-JFM. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: February 13, 2008.

/airehart.con

Case 2:07-cv-01839-JFM Document 13 Filed 02/14/08 Page 2 of 2