Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-00256/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-00256-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 47:227 Telephone Consumer Protection Act

---

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

SIDNEY NAIMAN,

Plaintiff,

v.

RAYOSUN, LLC, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.19-cv-00256-JSC 

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 

REGARDING NON-APPEARING 

DEFENDANT RAYOSUN, LLC

The Court’s March 25, 2019 Order, (Dkt. No. 19), continued the hearing on Defendant 

Freedom Forever, LLC’s motion to dismiss, (Dkt. No. 7), to May 2, 2019, following Plaintiff’s 

statement that it “would be prejudiced by severance” of the non-appearing defendants in this 

action—at that time, Freedom Solar Services, LLC (“Freedom Solar”) and Rayosun, LLC 

(“Rayosun”), (Dkt. No. 18). The Court’s March 2019 Order stated that if consent of all parties is 

not obtained by May 2, 2019, the case would be reassigned to a district court judge. 

Since that Order, Plaintiff filed a motion for entry of default against defendants Rayosun 

and Freedom Solar. (Dkt. No. 23.) The next day, however, Plaintiff and Freedom Solar filed a 

stipulation seeking to extend the time for Freedom Solar to respond to Plaintiff’s complaint. (Dkt. 

No. 24.) Freedom Solar also consented to magistrate jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). 

(Dkt. No. 25.) Thus, Rayosun is the only defendant that has yet to appear and consent to 

magistrate jurisdiction. Because Rayosun has not consented, the Court cannot decide the motion 

to dismiss. See Williams v. King, 875 F.3d 500, 504 (9th Cir. 2017) (holding that magistrate 

“jurisdiction cannot vest until the court has received consent from all parties to an action.”). 

Given Plaintiff’s previous statement regarding prejudice that would result if Rayosun is 

severed from this action, and Plaintiff’s subsequent entry of default against Rayosun, the Court 

intends to reassign this case to a district court judge who can rule on all matters through final 

Case 3:19-cv-00256-WHA Document 26 Filed 04/15/19 Page 1 of 2
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

judgment. If Plaintiff’s position on severance of Rayosun has changed in light of Freedom Solar’s 

appearance, Plaintiff shall notify the Court on or before April 18, 2019; otherwise the case will be 

reassigned. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 15, 2019

JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:19-cv-00256-WHA Document 26 Filed 04/15/19 Page 2 of 2