Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-01028/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-01028-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 820
Nature of Suit: Copyright
Cause of Action: 17:501 Copyright 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

Priority Records LLC, a California limited

liability company; et al., 

Plaintiffs, 

vs.

Does 1 - 17, 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-07-1028-PHX-LOA

ORDER

This matter arises upon the Court’s review of the Complaint and Plaintiffs’ Ex

Parte Application for Leave to Take Immediate Discovery. (docket # # 1 and 3) Plaintiffs’

Ex Parte Application for Leave to Take Immediate Discovery was terminated without

prejudice by the Clerk because it was improperly filed electronically. ECF Policies and

Procedure Manual, II, ¶ M at p.18. Plaintiffs may refile Plaintiffs’ Ex Parte Application for

Leave to Take Immediate Discovery in paper form and shall provide a copy to the

undersigned’s chambers.

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

1, 2006, civil cases are, and will be, randomly assigned to a United States district judge or

to a United States magistrate judge. This matter has been assigned to the undersigned United

States Magistrate Judge.

Case 2:07-cv-01028-PGR Document 7 Filed 05/24/07 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 was electronically provided to Plaintiffs’ counsel by the

Clerk on May 23, 2007. (docket # 5) One may also 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. Consent/election

forms are not to be e-filed. Consent/election forms are to be filed in paper form with the

Clerk's Office. ECF Policies and Procedure Manual, II, ¶ M at p.19.

- 2 -

 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 Title 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 district judge, the appropriate section of the form, entitled Consent To Exercise Of

Jurisdiction By United States Magistrate Judge,1

 must be completed, signed and filed. The

party filing the case or removing it to this District 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 no later than 20 days after entry of appearance or as

otherwise directed by the Court, and shall serve a copy upon all other parties of record in the

case.

Any party is free to withhold consent to magistrate judge jurisdiction without

adverse consequences. Title 28 U.S.C. 636(c)(2); Rule 73(b), Fed.R.Civ.P.; Anderson v.

Woodcreek Venture Ltd., 351 F.3d 911, 914 (9th Cir. 2003) (pointing out that consent is the

“touchstone of magistrate judge jurisdiction” under Title 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 District Court’s docket reflects that the Complaint was filed

on May 22, 2007. Before the undersigned Magistrate Judge considers the merits of Plaintiffs’

Ex Parte Application, Plaintiffs shall have until and including Friday, June 1, 2007 within

Case 2:07-cv-01028-PGR Document 7 Filed 05/24/07 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 -

which to make their selection to either consent to magistrate judge jurisdiction or elect to

have the case assigned to a United States district judge. 

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs shall file their written election to either

consent to magistrate judge jurisdiction or election to proceed before a United States district

judge on or before Friday, June 1, 2007.

 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. The District’s Rules of Practice may be found on the District Court’s

internet web page at www.azd.uscourts.gov/.

DATED this 24th day of May, 2007.

Case 2:07-cv-01028-PGR Document 7 Filed 05/24/07 Page 3 of 3