Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-00714/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-00714-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 893
Nature of Suit: Environmental Matters
Cause of Action: 33:1319 Clean Water Act

---

Case No.:15-cv-00714-NC 

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

CALIFORNIA SPORTFISHING 

PROTECTION ALLIANCE,

Plaintiff,

v.

CITY OF SANTA CRUZ, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.15-cv-00714-NC 

ORDER REQUESTING 

CLARIFICATION ON 

STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL OR 

ADDITIONAL 

CONSENT/DECLINATION OF 

MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

JURISDICTION BY INDIVIDUAL 

DEFENDANTS

Re: Dkt. No. 20

The Court has reviewed the Stipulation to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Claims With 

Prejudice and Proposed Order, Dkt. No. 20. The Proposed Order asks that the Court 

“retain and have jurisdiction over the Parties” with respect to future disputes arising under 

the Settlement Agreement. The term “Parties” is not defined in the Stipulation. If 

“Parties” is limited to CSPA and City of Santa Cruz, the Court is prepared to grant the 

Proposed Order. If “Parties” includes the individual defendants Pearson, Seifert and 

Schneiter, then the Court has a jurisdictional problem. Those defendants have not 

consented to the jurisdiction of a U.S. magistrate judge in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 

636(c).

//

Case 5:15-cv-00714-NC Document 22 Filed 08/10/15 Page 1 of 2
Case No.:15-cv-00714-NC 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

Accordingly, the parties are requested by August 24 to clarify whether (1) “Parties” 

includes the individual defendants; and if so (2) whether the individual defendants consent 

or decline the jurisdiction of a U.S. magistrate judge in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 

636(c). This will permit the Court to act on the Stipulation to Dismiss.

Plaintiff’s counsel might anticipate this issue in future settlement agreements by 

including in paragraph 13 of the standard settlement agreement a consent to magistrate 

judge jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), in addition to a consent to the jurisdiction of 

the District Court for the Northern District of California. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 10, 2015 _____________________________________

NATHANAEL M. COUSINS

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:15-cv-00714-NC Document 22 Filed 08/10/15 Page 2 of 2