Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-02111/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-02111-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 840
Nature of Suit: Trademark
Cause of Action: 15:1051 Trademark Infringement

---

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

FCC, Inc., an Arizona foreign corporation,

of Franchise Capital Corporation, a

Barbados corporation,

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Andrew P. Palmer an individual, Andrew

P. Palmer and his spouse, Franchise

Institute, Inc., a Delaware corporation,

TES Franchising L.L.C., a Connecticut

limited liability company, and Terry O.

Powell, an individual, and Terry O. Powell

and Karen Powell, his spouse,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-07-2111-PHX-LOA

NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT

AND ORDER

Pursuant to Local Rule (?LRCiv”) 3.8(a), Rules of Practice, effective 

December 1, 2006, 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 Local Rule and assignment, 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 the assigned magistrate judge or to elect to have the case

Case 2:07-cv-02111-LOA Document 15 Filed 11/30/07 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 -

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

party to a federal civil case has, subject to some exceptions, a constitutional right to

proceed before an Article III judge.” Dixon v. Ylst, 990 F.2d 478, 479 (9th Cir. 1993)

(citing Pacemaker Diagnostic Clinic of Am. Inc. v. Instromedix, Inc., 725 F.2d 537, 541

(9th Cir. 1984) (en banc)).

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

Defendants Andrew P. Palmer an individual, Andrew P. Palmer and his spouse, Franchise

Institute, Inc., a Delaware corporation, TES Franchising L.L.C., a Connecticut limited

liability company, and Terry O. Powell, an individual, and Terry O. Powell and Karen

Powell, his spouse on November 27, 2007. (docket #11) Whether the Answer is timely or

not may be a disputed issue but it does constitute an appearance for purposes of this

Notice and Order.

Case 2:07-cv-02111-LOA Document 15 Filed 11/30/07 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 -

It is unknown if a copy of the appropriate consent form, electronically

transmitted to Plaintiff’s counsel on October 31, 2007, by the Clerk, was served with the

Complaint and Summons upon Defendants Andrew P. Palmer an individual, Andrew P.

Palmer and his spouse, Franchise Institute, Inc., a Delaware corporation, TES Franchising

L.L.C., a Connecticut limited liability company, and Terry O. Powell, an individual, and

Terry O. Powell and Karen Powell, his spouse per the written instructions from the Clerk.

IT IS ORDERED that Defendants Andrew P. Palmer an individual,

Andrew P. Palmer and his spouse, Franchise Institute, Inc., a Delaware corporation, TES

Franchising L.L.C., a Connecticut limited liability company, and Terry O. Powell, an

individual, and Terry O. Powell and Karen Powell, his spouse shall each execute and file

no later than December 20, 2007 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, 2006. The

District’s Rules of Practice may be found on the District Court’s internet web page at

ww.azd.uscourts.gov/. All other rules may be found as www.uscourts.gov/rules/. The

fact that a party is acting pro 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 29th day of November, 2007.

Case 2:07-cv-02111-LOA Document 15 Filed 11/30/07 Page 3 of 3