Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-00025/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-00025-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 28:1338 Patent 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 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

LAKSHMI ARUNACHALAM,

Plaintiff, 

v. 

FREMONT BANCORPORATION, et al., 

Defendants. 

Case No. 15-cv-00023-EDL, 15-cv-00024-

EDL, 15-cv-00025-EDL 

ORDER 

Plaintiff filed these cases on January 5, 2015. On February 5, 2015, Plaintiff filed her 

Consent to Proceed Before a United States Magistrate Judge in each case. On March 13, 2015, the 

Court issued an Order relating the three cases, and reassigning the cases to this Court. On March 

16, 2015, Plaintiff filed another form regarding consent and declination, which indicated 

Plaintiff’s declination to proceed before a United States Magistrate Judge with the following 

explanatory handwritten note: “Due to Judge Laporte’s conflict of interest with Trulia Inc.’s 

counsel and the 2 cases are related.” See 15-cv-23 EDL (docket no. 20). 

It appears that Plaintiff is seeking to withdraw her consent to proceed before a United 

States Magistrate Judge in all three related cases. Withdrawal of consent in civil cases is only 

permitted in extraordinary circumstances. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(4); Dixon v. Ylst, 990 F.2d 478, 

480 (9th Cir. 1993) (“Once a civil case is referred to a magistrate judge under section 636(c), the 

reference can be withdrawn by the court only ‘for good cause shown on its own motion, or under 

extraordinary circumstances shown by any party.’”). “There is no absolute right, in a civil case, to 

withdraw consent to trial and other proceedings before a magistrate judge.” Dixon, 990 F.2d at 

Case 3:15-cv-00025-EDL Document 41 Filed 03/17/15 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 Californi

a

480. The Court is not aware of any conflict of interest that would prevent it from presiding over 

these matters. Nor has Plaintiff pointed to any extraordinary circumstances to justify withdrawal 

of consent. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s consent in all three cases is still in effect. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: March 17, 2015 

______________________________________ 

Elizabeth D. Laporte 

 United States Magistrate Judge 

Case 3:15-cv-00025-EDL Document 41 Filed 03/17/15 Page 2 of 2