Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_19-cv-03125/USCOURTS-cand-5_19-cv-03125-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 290
Nature of Suit: Other Real Property Actions
Cause of Action: 15:1692 Fair Debt Collection Act

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

CECILIA MANGAOANG,

Plaintiff,

v.

SPECIAL DEFAULT SERVICES, INC., et 

al.,

Defendants.

Case No.19-cv-03125-VKD 

ORDER OF REASSIGNMENT

Pro se plaintiff Cecilia Mangaoang filed this action asserting claims related to the 

foreclosure of her home. Dkt. No. 1. Defendants Trinity Financial Services, LLC (“Trinity”); 

Newport Beach Holdings, LLC (“Newport Beach”); Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc. (“SPS”); and 

Wilmington Trust, NA, Successor Trustee to Citibank, N.A. as Trustee, for the Benefit of 

Registered Holders of Structured Asset Mortgage Investments II Trust 2007-AR3, Mortgage PassThrough Certificates, Series 2007-AR3 (“Wilmington”) have appeared and moved to dismiss all

claims against them pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Dkt. Nos. 17, 19. 

Defendant Special Default Services, Inc. (“SDS”) has not yet appeared or responded to the 

complaint. Although Trinity, Newport Beach, SPS, and Wilmington have consented to magistrate 

judge jurisdiction, Ms. Mangaoang and SDS have not. Dkt. Nos. 18, 20.

All named parties, including unserved defendants, must consent to magistrate judge 

jurisdiction before a magistrate judge may hear and decide a case. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1); 

Williams v. King, 875 F.3d 500, 501–04 (9th Cir. 2017) (holding that magistrate judge lacked 

jurisdiction to dismiss case on initial review because unserved defendants had not consented to 

proceed before magistrate judge). As it appears that this case requires a decision that disposes of 

Case 5:19-cv-03125-SVK Document 22 Filed 07/09/19 Page 1 of 2
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

the claims against some or all of the defendants at this time, and because not all parties have 

consented to magistrate judge jurisdiction, the matter must be reassigned to a district judge.

Accordingly, the Clerk of the Court shall reassign this case to a district judge pursuant to 

the Court’s Assignment Plan.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 9, 2019

VIRGINIA K. DEMARCHI

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:19-cv-03125-SVK Document 22 Filed 07/09/19 Page 2 of 2