Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05422/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05422-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOSE MANRIQUEZ II, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

MAIL WELL, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

1:04-cv-5422 OWW LJO

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS OF

MAGISTRATE JUDGE RE:

MINOR’S COMPROMISE 

This case is before the court on the Findings and

Recommendations of the Magistrate Judge concerning the completion

and approval of the minor’s compromise in this case. 

The parties agreed to submit any dispute over their

settlement of this case to United States District Court

Magistrate Judge Lawrence J. O’Neill (record of proceedings March

23, 2005). Although there is no signed stipulation for

jurisdiction of the Magistrate Judge for all purposes in this

case, and Defendant asserts that it stipulated in writing to have

a United States Magistrate Judge “conduct any and all proceedings

relating to the settlement in this case, including the trial, or

the entry of a final judgment, and conduct all post-judgment

proceedings,” the document marked Exhibit A refers to a fax that

Case 1:04-cv-05422-NEW Document 59 Filed 08/26/05 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

consists of two pages, only the first page of that fax is

attached and the court file does not reflect a signed consent by

the Defendants to the jurisdiction of the Magistrate Judge for

all purposes.

Plaintiff’s counsel explains that the consent to the

jurisdiction for all purposes of the Magistrate Judge was not

signed by Defendant’s counsel.

The court has fully considered all issues raised by the

dispute over completion of the settlement. Because the parties

did agree to have the Magistrate Judge resolve any and all

disputes over their settlement agreement, the court adopts and

approves the Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations that

the minor’s compromise not be approved until the Magistrate Judge

has had the opportunity to resolve any disputes between the

parties and to answer any open questions.

IT IS ORDERED:

1. That the Findings and Recommendations of the Magistrate

Judge are ADOPTED;

2. This case is remanded to the Magistrate Judge for

further proceedings to effectuate a final settlement and

resolution of the case in accordance with the parties’ agreement. 

DATED: August 25, 2005.

/S/OLIVER W. WANGER

 Oliver W. Wanger

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

manriquez v. mail well order

Case 1:04-cv-05422-NEW Document 59 Filed 08/26/05 Page 2 of 2