Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-03133/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-03133-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 690
Nature of Suit: Other Forfeiture and Penalty Suits
Cause of Action: 21:881 Forfeiture Property - Real Estate

---

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

United States of America,

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Real Property Located at 2644 West

Northview Avenue, Phoenix, Arizona

85031, more specifically described as Lot

10, Canyon Court Unit One, According to

Book 41 of Maps, Page 30, Records of

Maricopa County, Arizona, and all

improvements, fixtures, and

appurtenances, thereon,

Defendant,

Re: The interest of Alfonso Lopez Zuniga,

Claimant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-05-3133-PHX-LOA

NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT

AND ORDER

 Pursuant to General Order No. 98-62 of the United States District Court, District of

Arizona and Local Rule 3.8(a), LRCiv, Rules of Practice, effective December 1, 2005, all

civil cases are, and will be, randomly assigned to a U.S. district judge or to a U.S. magistrate

judge. This matter has been assigned to the undersigned U.S. Magistrate Judge.

 As a result of the aforesaid Order and Rule, if all parties consent in writing, the case

will remain with the assigned magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(c)(1) for all

purposes, including trial and final entry of judgment. If any party chooses the district judge

option, the case will be randomly reassigned to a U.S. district judge. To either consent to

Case 2:05-cv-03133-LOA Document 23 Filed 04/19/06 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

1

The consent/election form may be obtained directly from the Clerk of the Court or

by accessing the District of Arizona’s web site at www.azd.uscourts.gov. To find the

consent/election form on the District’s web site, click on “Local Rules” at the top of the page,

then click on “Forms” on the left side of the page and then click on and print the appropriate

form.

- 2 -

the assigned magistrate judge or to elect to have the case heard before a U.S. district judge,

the appropriate section of the form, entitled Consent To Exercise Of Jurisdiction By United

States Magistrate Judge1

, must be completed and signed. The party filing the case or

removing it to this Court is responsible for serving all parties with the consent forms. Each

party must file a completed consent form and certificate of service with the Clerk of the

Court not later than 20 days after entry of appearance, and must serve a copy by mail or hand

delivery upon all parties of record in the case.

Any party is free to withhold consent to magistrate judge jurisdiction 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).

A review of the Court’s file indicates that an Answer was filed by Claimant Chase

Home Finance LLC, successor by merger to Chase Manhattan Mortgage

Corporation("CHF") on April 14, 2006.

IT IS ORDERED that Claimant CHF shall execute and file within 20 days of the date

of this Order either a written consent to the exercise of authority by the magistrate judge or

a written election to have the case reassigned to a United States district judge.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that counsel and any party, if unrepresented, shall

hereinafter comply with the Rules of Practice for the United States District Court for 

the District of Arizona, as amended on December 1, 2005. The District’s Rules of Practice

may be found on the District Court’s internet web page at www.azd.uscourts.gov/.

All other rules may be found as www.uscourts.gov/rules/. The fact that a party is acting pro

Case 2:05-cv-03133-LOA Document 23 Filed 04/19/06 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 -

se does not discharge this party's duties to "abide by the rules of the court in which he

litigates." Carter v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 784 F.2d 1006, 1008 (9th Cir. 1986).

DATED this 18th day of April, 2006.

Case 2:05-cv-03133-LOA Document 23 Filed 04/19/06 Page 3 of 3