Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-01257/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-01257-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Breach of Contract

---

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

KB Home Phoenix, Inc., an Arizona

corporation,

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Owners Insurance Company, a foreign

corporation; and Does 1 through 100,

inclusive,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-07-1257-PHX-LOA

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

On July 6, 2007, this Court entered an order that Plaintiff shall either

consent to magistrate judge jurisdiction in writing or elect to proceed before a district

judge by July 19, 2007. (docket # 7) To date, Plaintiff has not complied with the Court's

July 6, 2007 Order.

The Civil Justice Reform Act of 1990 (“CJRA”), 28 U.S.C. § 471 et seq., 

mandates the early and on-going judicial management of the pretrial process. Under the

CJRA mandate, “[f]ederal trial courts are now required, by statute, to implement

techniques and strategies designed to dispose of cases in an efficient and inexpensive

manner.” See, Schwarzkopf Technologies Corp. v. Ingersoll Cutting Tool Co., 142

F.R.D. 420, 423 (D.Del.1992). Additionally, federal judges “are subject to the injunction

of Rule 1 [Federal Rules of Civil Procedure] that [they] ‘be construed to secure the just,

speedy and inexpensive determination of every action.’ ” Herbert v. Lando, 441 U.S. 153,

177, 99 S.Ct. 1635, 1649, 60 L.Ed.2d 115 (1979) (emphasis added). Plaintiff's failure to

Case 2:07-cv-01257-PGR Document 10 Filed 07/26/07 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

- 2 -

timely comply with the Court’s prior order is frustrating the speedy and inexpensive

resolution of this case.

Absent the express consent of all the parties, a United States magistrate

judge does not have the statutory or constitutional authority to rule on a dispositive

motion. 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1)(A). The Magistrates Act permits magistrate judges to

conduct all proceedings in civil cases if the parties expressly consent: "Upon consent of

the parties, a . . . United States magistrate judge . . . may conduct any or all proceedings in

a jury or non-jury civil matter and order the entry of judgment in the case, when specially

designated to exercise such jurisdiction by the district court or courts he serves." Hanson

v. Mahoney, 433 F.3d. 1107, 1111 (9th Cir. 2006) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1)); Gomez

v.United States, 490 U.S. 858, 865-872 (1989) (outlining the evolution of the Act). No

precise written form is required to consent to a magistrate judge or elect a district judge.

Kofoed v. IBEW, Local 48, 237 F.3d 1001, 1004 (9th Cir.2001); Fed. R. Civ. 73(b),

advisory committee note.

Any party is free to withhold consent to magistrate judge jurisdiction and

elect to proceed before a district judge 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)). 

Pursuant to Rule 41(b), FED.R.CIV.P., and Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d

1258, 1260 (9th Cir. 1992) (trial courts have the inherent power to control their dockets

and in the exercise of that power, they may impose or recommend sanctions including,

where appropriate, dismissal of a case without prejudice, 

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff show cause in writing on or before August 

3, 2007 why Plaintiff KB Home Phoenix, Inc., and/or its counsel should not be sanctioned

pursuant to Title 18 U.S.C. § 401, 28 U.S.C. § 636(e) and/or the Court’s inherent

authority for failing to comply with the Court’s prior order. If Plaintiff properly complies

with the Court’s July 6, 2007 Order on or before 5:00 p.m. on Friday, August 3, 2007

Case 2:07-cv-01257-PGR Document 10 Filed 07/26/07 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 -

or has already done so but its consent or election has not yet been docketed by the Clerk,

the undersigned will automatically discharge and vacate this OSC without imposing

sanctions.

DATED this 26th day of July, 2007.

Case 2:07-cv-01257-PGR Document 10 Filed 07/26/07 Page 3 of 3