Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-05548/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-05548-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 446
Nature of Suit: Americans with Disabilities Act - Other
Cause of Action: 42:12101 Americans w/ Disabilities Act (ADA)

---

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

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Northern District of California

San Francisco

JOSE DANIEL CASTILLO-ANTONIO,

Plaintiff,

v.

RUI LIAN TAN d/b/a Yuet Foo Seafood;

KWONG C. WONG MAN; F. PING,

Defendants.

_____________________________________/

No. C 13-05548 LB

ORDER DIRECTING THE CLERK

OF THE COURT TO REASSIGN THIS

ACTION TO A DISTRICT JUDGE

In this action, Plaintiff has sued three Defendants: (1) Rui Lian Tan d/b/a Yuet Foo Seafood; (2)

Kwong C. Wong Man; and (3) F. Ping. Plaintiff filed his complaint on November 29, 2013, and on

December 5, 2013, Plaintiff consented to the undersigned’s jurisdiction. Complaint, ECF No. 1;

Consent (Plaintiff), ECF No. 6. Plaintiff served all three Defendants on December 5, 2013 as well. 

Executed Summonses, ECF No. 7. None of the Defendants responded to the Complaint, so the

Clerk entered their defaults on February 19, 2014. Entry of Default, ECF No. 9. On March 12,

2014, two of the Defendants—Kwong C. Wong Man and F. Ping—stipulated with Plaintiff to set

aside their defaults, and the court granted the stipulation on March 17, 2014. Stipulation and Order,

ECF No. 11. Those two Defendants thereafter answered the Complaint, Answer, ECF No. 13,

consented to the undersigned’s jurisdiction, Consent (Man & Ping), ECF No. 15, and now they

move to dismiss it, Motion, ECF No. 17. 

The problem is that the third Defendant—Rui Lian Tan—has been served but has yet to appear

Case 3:13-cv-05548-JD Document 26 Filed 01/13/15 Page 1 of 2
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

UNITED 

STATES 

DISTRICT 

COURT

For the Northern District of California

and consent to the undersigned’s jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) requires the undersigned to

receive the consent of all parties before she can rule on the pending motion to dismiss, and served

defendants, like Rui Lian Tan, are considered parties for consent purposes. Cf. Ornelas v. De

Frantz, C 00-1067 JCS, 2000 WL 973684, at *2 n.2 (N.D. Cal. June 29, 2000) (unserved defendants

are not “parties” for consent purposes) (citing Neals v. Norwood, 59 F.3d 530, 532 (5th Cir. 1995). 

Therefore, the undersigned finds that this action must be reassigned to a district judge and directs the

Clerk of the Court to do so.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 13, 2015 _______________________________

LAUREL BEELER

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:13-cv-05548-JD Document 26 Filed 01/13/15 Page 2 of 2