Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_08-cv-01173/USCOURTS-cand-3_08-cv-01173-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Breach of Contract

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

EIDEX FAMILY PARTNERSHIP, L.P.,

Plaintiff,

v.

CARLVIN JUSTICE,

Defendant.

___________________________________/

No. C-08-1173 EMC

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S

MOTION TO WITHHOLD CONSENT

AND FOR REASSIGNMENT

(Docket No. 8)

Previously, the Court issued an order in which it granted Defendant Carlvin Justice’s request

to proceed in forma pauperis but remanded the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The

Court issued the order only after Mr. Justice had consented to proceeding before a magistrate judge. 

Now, after the Court has issued an order deeming Mr. Justice’s removal improper, he seeks to

withdraw that consent.

In the Ninth Circuit, “[t]here is no absolute right, in a civil case, to withdraw consent to trial

and other proceedings before a magistrate judge.” Dixon v. Ylst, 990 F.2d 478, 480 ( 9th Cir. 1993). 

Once a case is referred to a magistrate judge upon consent of the parties, “the reference can be

withdrawn by the court only ‘for good cause shown on its own motion, or under extraordinary

circumstances shown by any party.’” Id. Mr. Justice has failed to show that there are extraordinary

circumstances such that he should be able to withdraw his consent. Mr. Justice is simply unsatisfied 

///

///

///

Case 3:08-cv-01173-EMC Document 9 Filed 04/21/08 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

with the Court’s conclusion that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction. As it noted in its previous order,

the Court has a sua sponte obligation to ensure that it has subject matter jurisdiction over a case.

This order disposes of Docket No. 8.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 21, 2008

_________________________ EDWARD M. CHEN

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:08-cv-01173-EMC Document 9 Filed 04/21/08 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

EIDEX FAMILY PARTNERSHIP, L.P.,

Plaintiff(s),

v.

CARLVIN JUSTICE,

Defendant(s).

___________________________________/

No. C-08-1173 EMC

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the U.S. District Court, Northern

District of California. On the below date, I served a true and correct copy of the attached, by placing

said copy/copies in a postage-paid envelope addressed to the person(s) listed below, by depositing

said envelope in the U.S. Mail; or by placing said copy/copies into an inter-office delivery

receptacle located in the Office of the Clerk.

CARLVIN JUSTICE

1414 62nd Street

Emeryville, CA 94608

ALL OTHER COUNSEL SERVED VIA

ELECTRONIC FILING (“E-FILING”)

Dated: April 21, 2008 RICHARD W. WIEKING, CLERK

By: /s/ 

Leni Doyle

Deputy Clerk

Case 3:08-cv-01173-EMC Document 9 Filed 04/21/08 Page 3 of 3