Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-02407/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-02407-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 29:791 Job Discrimination (Rehabilitation Act)

---

1

Case No.14-cv-04395-LHK; 14-cv-02403-LHK; 14-cv-02404-LHK; 14-cv-02405-LHK; 14-cv-02406-LHK; 14-cv02407-LHK; 14-cv-02408-LHK;

ORDER RE CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE AND CONSENT TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

JURISDICTION

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 JOSE DIVISION

JOHN WITTHOEFT,

Plaintiff,

v.

PAQ, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

Case Nos.14-cv-04395-LHK

 14-cv-02403-LHK

 14-cv-02404-LHK

 14-cv-02405-LHK

 14-cv-02406-LHK

 14-cv-02407-LHK

 14-cv-02408-LHK

ORDER RE CASE MANAGEMENT 

CONFERENCE AND CONSENT TO 

MAGISTRATE JUDGE JURISDICTION

Plaintiff had previously consented to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction assuming that Plaintiff 

would proceed in a single action with all nine Defendants. See ECF No. 9. The Court severed 

seven Defendants from the original action on May 20, 2015. See ECF No. 94. At the May 20, 

2015 case management conference, counsel for Plaintiff indicated that counsel would need to 

consult with Plaintiff as to whether Plaintiff would continue to consent to Magistrate Judge 

jurisdiction even if that would result in some of the severed cases proceeding before a Magistrate 

Case 5:15-cv-02407-PSG Document 8 Filed 06/15/15 Page 1 of 2
2

Case No.14-cv-04395-LHK; 14-cv-02403-LHK; 14-cv-02404-LHK; 14-cv-02405-LHK; 14-cv-02406-LHK; 14-cv02407-LHK; 14-cv-02408-LHK;

ORDER RE CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE AND CONSENT TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

JURISDICTION

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

Judge and some of the severed cases proceeding before the undersigned. In the June 10, 2015 joint 

case management statement, Plaintiff represented that he would consent to Magistrate Judge 

Grewal. Plaintiff is ordered to file a formal consent/declination to magistrate judge jurisdiction in 

each related action by 2 p.m., Tuesday, June 16, 2015.

Should both Plaintiff and the specific Defendant in a particular case consent to Magistrate 

Judge jurisdiction, the undersigned judge will reassign that case. Should either Plaintiff or the 

specific Defendant decline Magistrate Judge jurisdiction, the undersigned judge will retain that 

case. This may result in some cases proceeding before a Magistrate Judge, while other cases will 

remain before the undersigned judge. 

The Court ordered Defendants to file consents or declinations to Magistrate Judge 

jurisdiction by June 5, 2015. See No. 14-4395, ECF No. 94.With the exception of Defendant 

Dollar Tree Stores, the remaining Defendants have not done so. See No. 14-4395, ECF No. 101. 

All other Defendants are ordered to file a consent/declination to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction by 2

p.m., Tuesday, June 16, 2015.

Defendant Dollar Tree Stores requested that the Court clarify which parties are ordered to 

appear at the June 17, 2015 case management conference. All parties in all related actions are 

ordered to appear at the June 17, 2015 case management conference unless the case is reassigned.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 15, 2015

______________________________________

LUCY H. KOH

United States District Judge

Case 5:15-cv-02407-PSG Document 8 Filed 06/15/15 Page 2 of 2