Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_07-cv-02350/USCOURTS-cand-5_07-cv-02350-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 195
Nature of Suit: Contract Product Liability
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Injunctive &amp; Declaratory Relief

---

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

ORDER, page 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

FELIX TORRES, JR.,

Plaintiff,

v.

HSBC BANK OF NEVADA, et al.,

Defendants. __________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: C-07-02350 PVT

ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR

REASSIGNMENT TO U.S. DISTRICT

JUDGE

On August 22, 2007, the court ordered plaintiff to submit further briefing on whether he

may consent to a magistrate judge and later withdraw his consent to a magistrate judge and

request reassignment to a district judge. Further briefing was due on or before September 25,

2007. Rather than submit further briefing, plaintiff filed a second request for reassignment to a

district judge on August 27, 2007. 

“‘The right to adjudication before an Article III judge is an important constitutional

right.’ However, like other fundamental rights, this right can be waived if the parties consent to

trial before a magistrate judge. Once a civil case is referred to a magistrate judge under §636(c),

the reference can be vacated by the court only ‘for good cause shown on its own motion or under

extraordinary circumstances shown by any party.’” Rogers v. Shepherd, Slip copy, 2007 WL

2255115 (E.D. Cal.). See also, McNab v. J & J Marine, Inc., 240 F. 3d 1326, 1327 (11th Cir.

Case 5:07-cv-02350-PVT Document 18 Filed 10/09/07 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 1 The holding of this court is limited to the facts and the particular circumstances

underlying the present second request for reassignment to a district judge.

ORDER, page 2

2001)(“[A] party’s consent to a magistrate judge’s exercise of jurisdiction under 28 USC §

636(c)(1) must be explicit, voluntary and unambiguous.”).

On May 15, 2007, plaintiff filed his written consent to proceed before a magistrate judge. 

There has been no showing that consent was not explicit, not voluntary or ambiguous. 

Moreover, plaintiff has not shown extraordinary circumstances which would warrant vacating

the reference to a magistrate judge. Accordingly, plaintiff’s second request for reassignment to a

district judge is denied.1 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 10/9/2007

____________________________

PATRICIA V. TRUMBULL

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:07-cv-02350-PVT Document 18 Filed 10/09/07 Page 2 of 2