Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-01122/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-01122-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Other Civil Rights

---

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

Ermma J. Robinson, a single woman,

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Phoenix Newspapers, Inc., an Arizona

corporatiin, d/b/a The Arizona Republic,

operating under the laws of the State of

Arizona; Bob Loon an agent employee

and/or representative working under the

direction and/or control of Phoenix

Newspapers, Inc.,

Defendants

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-07-1122-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

heard before a U.S. district judge, the appropriate section of the form, entitled Consent To

Case 2:07-cv-01122-SRB Document 9 Filed 08/02/07 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 -

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 on July 30, 2007 an Answer was filed by

Defendant Phoenix Newspapers, Inc., on (docket #7) and a Motion to Dismiss was filed

by Defendant Bob Loon (docket #8).

It is unknown if a copy of the appropriate consent form, mailed to Plaintiff on 

June 6, 2007 by the Clerk, was served with the Complaint and Summons upon

Defendants Phoenix Newspapers, Inc., and Bob Loon per the written instructions from

the Clerk.

Case 2:07-cv-01122-SRB Document 9 Filed 08/02/07 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 ORDERED that Defendants Phoenix Newspapers, Inc., and Bob Loon shall

each execute and file on or before August 21, 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 2nd day of August, 2007.

Case 2:07-cv-01122-SRB Document 9 Filed 08/02/07 Page 3 of 3