Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-01681/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-01681-12/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 410
Nature of Suit: Antitrust
Cause of Action: 17:0101 Copyright Infringement (definitions)

---

1

18-cv-01681-GPC-MSB

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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SARA ELIZABETH SIEGLER, et al.

Plaintiffs,

vs.

SORRENTO THERAPEUTICS, INC., et 

al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 3:18-cv-01681-GPC-MSB

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO 

HEAR MOTIONS FOR 

RECONSIDERATION AND 

RECUSAL BEFORE THE 

MAGISTRATE JUDGE

[ECF No. 145.]

On August 20, 2019, Plaintiff Sara Elizabeth Siegler’s (“Plaintiff”) filed a motion 

for reconsideration of the judgment entered on August 2, 2019. ECF Nos. 126, 127, 134. 

The Court noticed the motion for a hearing on November 15, 2019. ECF No. 139. On 

September 10, 2019, Plaintiff filed a subsequent motion seeking the Court’s recusal from 

this matter. ECF No. 142. To accommodate Plaintiff’s concurrent request for an 

extension in the briefing schedule on the motion for reconsideration, and for the sake of 

judicial economy, the Court set a new hearing on December 20, 2019 to hear the recusal 

and reconsideration motions. ECF No. 143. On October 29, 2019, Plaintiff filed another 

motion seeking that the two pending motions, ECF Nos. 134, 142, be transferred to 

Magistrate Judge Berg. ECF No. 145. The Court now addresses Plaintiff’s latest motion.

Case 3:18-cv-01681-GPC-MSB Document 146 Filed 11/20/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 2
2

18-cv-01681-GPC-MSB

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

I. Analysis

“Upon the consent of the parties, a . . . United States magistrate judge . . . may 

conduct any or all proceedings in a jury or nonjury civil matter and order the entry of 

judgment in the case.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1). The parties’ consent may be inferred from 

their conduct, Roell v. Withrow, 538 U.S. 580, 590 775 (2003). Nonetheless, to preserve 

the litigant’s right to be heard by an Article III judge, the Act requires that magistrate 

judges only exercise such powers when acting “upon the consent of the parties.” See 

Baker v. Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahirya, 810 F. Supp. 2d 90, 98 (D.D.C. 

2011) (citing Roell, 538 U.S. at 585); see also Fulton v. Robinson, 289 F.3d 188, 199 (2d 

Cir. 2002) (“It was well within the court’s discretion to reject reference to a magistrate 

judge when dispositive motions were pending before the district judge.”).

Likewise, per the local rules of this District, parties must obtain a hearing date for 

any motion where the “court’s ruling is necessary.” CivLR 7.1.e.1. “Local rules have the 

‘force of law’ and are binding upon the parties and upon the court.” Prof’l Programs 

Grp. v. Dep’t of Commerce, 29 F.3d 1349, 1353 (9th Cir. 1994) (citations omitted). 

Where a party fails to comply with the local rules in filing a motion, a court may dismiss 

the motion. See Atchinson, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. Hercules Inc., 146 F.3d 1071, 

1074 (9th Cir. 1998) (“District courts have inherent power to control their dockets.”).

Plaintiff acknowledges that Defendants have not consented to hearing the two 

pending motions before the Magistrate Judge. ECF No. 145 at 4 n.2. Plaintiff also filed 

her latest motion without first obtaining a hearing date. Thus, the Court DISMISSES

Plaintiff’s motion for failure to comply with 28 U.S.C. § 636 and Local Rule 7.1.e.1.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 20, 2019

Case 3:18-cv-01681-GPC-MSB Document 146 Filed 11/20/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2