Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-01152/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-01152-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 380
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Property Damage
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal

---

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

Jose Luis Leal,

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Chapman Chevrolet, L.L.C.; John

Chapman and Jane Doe Chapman,

husband and wife, as agents and

individually,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 06-1152-PHX-LOA

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

On May 12, 2006, this Court entered an order that all parties shall either

consent to magistrate judge jurisdiction or elect to proceed before a district judge by May 30,

2006. Defendant Chapman Chevrolet, L.L.C. has timely consented to proceed before a

magistrate judge. (docket # 10) Plaintiff has failed to timely comply with this Court’s order

of May 12, 2006. There is presently pending for ruling Chapman Chevrolet's Motion To

Compel Arbitration (docket # ) and the parties' Stipulation To Order Compelling Arbitration

(docket # 11).

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

Case 2:06-cv-01152-FJM Document 12 Filed 06/12/06 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 -

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 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 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 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). Since a motion to compel

arbitration, even a stipulation to such, may be deemed a dispositive motion, as a motion to

remand is, the issue of consent to magistrate judge jurisdiction by all parties or election to

a district judge by any party must be directly addressed at this time. Nasca v. Peoplesoft, 160

F.3d 578 (9th Cir. 1999).

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 sanctions including, where appropriate, dismissal

of a case), 

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff show cause in writing on or before June 23,

2006 why he and/or his counsel should not be sanctioned and/or be held in contempt of court

pursuant to title 18 U.S.C. 401 for failing to comply with the Court’s prior order. Sanctions

may include the dismissal of Plaintiff's case without prejudice upon recommendation to a

district judge. If Plaintiff properly complies with the Court’s May 12, 2006 order on or 

/ / /

/ / /

Case 2:06-cv-01152-FJM Document 12 Filed 06/12/06 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 -

before June 23, 2006 by either consenting to magistrate judge jurisdiction or electing to have

the case assigned to a district judge, the undersigned will automatically vacate this OSC.

DATED this 9th day of June, 2006.

Case 2:06-cv-01152-FJM Document 12 Filed 06/12/06 Page 3 of 3