Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_07-cv-08042/USCOURTS-azd-3_07-cv-08042-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 791
Nature of Suit: Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA)
Cause of Action: 29:1132 E.R.I.S.A.-Employee Benefits

---

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

Karl S. Michalak,

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Wadsworth Golf Construction Company

Disability Plan,

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-07-8042-PCT-LOA

NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT

AND ORDER

 Pursuant Local Rule (?LRCiv”) 3.8(a), Rules of Practice effective

December 1, 2006 all civil cases are, and will be, randomly assigned to a U.S. district

judge or to a U.S. magistrate judge. This matter has been reassigned to the undersigned

magistrate judge after District Judge Neil V. Wake’s recusal order. (docket #6)

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 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

Case 3:07-cv-08042-DGC Document 8 Filed 10/22/07 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 may be obtained directly from the Clerk of the Court or

by accessing the District of Arizona’s web site at www.azd.uscourts.gov. To 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.

- 2 -

Exercise Of Jurisdiction By United States Magistrate Judge1

, must be completed, signed

and filed. 

Any party is free to withhold consent to magistrate judge jurisdiction

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). “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 Court’s file indicates that Plaintiff's Complaint was filed on

July 3, 2007. Plaintiff shall have until November 7, 2007 within which to make his

selection to either consent to magistrate judge jurisdiction or elect to proceed before a

United States district judge. 

Further, on October 15, 2007, counsel for both Plaintiff and Defendant filed

a Stipulation (docket #5) to extend the time within which Defendant may answer or

otherwise respond to the Complaint until October 29, 2007. The undersigned has granted

the Stipulation under separate order.

On October 17, 2007, the Clerk of the Court electronically transmitted to

both counsel for Plaintiff and Defendant the Consent to Exercise of Jurisdiction by United

States Magistrate Judge form and Instructions.

Accordingly,

Case 3:07-cv-08042-DGC Document 8 Filed 10/22/07 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 -

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff shall file on or before November 7, 2007

his written election to either consent to magistrate judge jurisdiction or elect to proceed

before a United States district judge.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Wadsworth Golf

Construction Company Disability Plan shall either consent to magistrate judge

jurisdiction or elect to proceed before a district judge on or before November 7, 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, as amended on December 1, 2006. The

District’s Rules of Practice may be found on the District Court’s internet web page at

www.azd.uscourts.gov/. All other rules may be found as www.uscourts.gov/rules/. The

fact that a party is acting pro se does not discharge this party's duties to "abide by the

rules of the court in which he litigates." Carter v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 784

F.2d 1006, 1008 (9th Cir. 1986).

DATED this 19th day of October, 2007.

Case 3:07-cv-08042-DGC Document 8 Filed 10/22/07 Page 3 of 3