Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_07-cv-03118/USCOURTS-cand-5_07-cv-03118-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1361 Petition for Writ of Mandamus

---

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

ORDER, page 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

JIN WU, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

ALBERTO GONZALES, et al.,

Defendants.

___________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: C 07-3118 PVT

ORDER VACATING HEARING DATE

AND SETTING DEADLINE FOR

DEFENDANT TO FILE ITS CONSENT

TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE

JURISDICTION

This case was originally assigned to District Judge Jeremy Fogel. On October 12, 2007, the

parties filed a Joint Case Management Conference Statement in which they represented they “would

consent to proceed before a Magistrate Judge.” A Case Management Conference was held before

District Judge Fogel on October 19, 2007. The civil minutes of that conference state that the parties

consent to reassignment to Magistrate Judge Trumbull for all purposes, and noted that the case

would be reassigned upon receipt of signed consents from all parties. On October 23, 20007,

Plaintiff filed a document entitled Consent to Proceed Before a United States Magistrate Judge (the

“Consent”), which included a signature block for Defense counsel, and “/s/” appeared on the

signature line for Defense counsel. 

The Consent filed by Plaintiff did not comply with section X.(B) of this court’s General

Order No. 45, which provides:

“Others. In the case of a Signatory who is not an ECF User, or who is an ECF User

but whose User ID and Password will not be utilized in the electronic filing of the

Case 5:07-cv-03118-PVT Document 27 Filed 02/08/08 Page 1 of 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

While Defendants’ consent to proceedings before a Magistrate Judge can be inferred from 1

Defendants’ failure to contradict Plaintiff’s two representations that Defendants consented, as well as

Defense counsel’s representations on the record at the Case Management Conference (see Roell v.

Withrow, 538 U.S. 580 (2003)), in order to avoid any dispute in this regard the court is not inclined to

rule on the cross-motions for summary judgment until Defendants have filed an express written consent

to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction.

ORDER, page 2

document, as in the case of documents requiring multiple signatures, the filer of the

document shall list thereon all the names of any other signatory or signatories. The

filer shall attest that concurrence in the filing of the document has been obtained from

each of the other signatories, or from the single signatory (in the case, e.g., of a

declaration) which shall serve in lieu of their signature(s) on the document. The filer’s

attestation may be incorporated in the document itself, or take the form of a

declaration to be attached to the document. The filer shall maintain records to support

this concurrence for subsequent production for the court if so ordered or for

inspection upon request by a party until one year after final resolution of the action

(including appeal, if any). The filer may attach a scanned image of the signature

page(s) of the document being electronically filed in lieu of maintaining the paper

record for subsequent production if required.”

Thus, the Consent filed by Plaintiff may be deemed to have been signed by Plaintiff’s counsel, but

not Defendants’ counsel. As such there is not yet any express consent to Magistrate Judge

jurisdiction by Defendants on file with the court. Therefore,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, no later than February 14, 2008, Defendants shall file their

consent to proceed before a Magistrate Judge.1

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the hearing on the cross-motions for summary judgment,

currently set for February 12, 2008, is VACATED, and the motions will be taken under submission

without oral argument. 

Dated: 2/8/08

 

PATRICIA V. TRUMBULL

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:07-cv-03118-PVT Document 27 Filed 02/08/08 Page 2 of 2