Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_08-cv-08019/USCOURTS-azd-3_08-cv-08019-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 110
Nature of Suit: Insurance
Cause of Action: 28:1330 Breach of Contract

---

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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Carol J. Cross,

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Monumental Life Insurance Co.,

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-08-08019-PCT-LOA

NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT

AND ORDER

 Pursuant Local Rule (?LRCiv”) 3.8(a), Rules of Practice effective December 1,

2007 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 Paul G. Rosenblatt’s recusal order (doc. #4).

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

Exercise Of Jurisdiction By United States Magistrate Judge1

, must be completed, signed

Case 3:08-cv-08019-FJM Document 5 Filed 02/19/08 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 form.

- 2 -

and filed. The party filing the case or removing it to this Court is responsible for serving

all parties with the consent forms. Each party must file a completed consent form and

certificate of service with the Clerk of the Court not later than 20 days after entry of

appearance, and must serve a copy by mail or hand delivery upon all parties of record in

the case.

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 Defendant’s Notice of Removal was

filed on February 13, 2008. Defendant shall have until March 7, 2008 within which to

make its selection to either consent to magistrate judge jurisdiction or elect to proceed

before a United States district judge. 

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that Defendant shall file on or before March 7, 2008 its written

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

United States district judge.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff shall either consent to proceed before

a magistrate judge or elect to proceed before a district judge by March 7, 2008.

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, 2007. The District’s Rules of Practice

Case 3:08-cv-08019-FJM Document 5 Filed 02/19/08 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 -

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 February, 2008.

Case 3:08-cv-08019-FJM Document 5 Filed 02/19/08 Page 3 of 3