Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-01471/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-01471-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Freedom Mortgage Corporation
Defendant
Leonila Urbina
Plaintiff
Neri Urbina
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

NERI URBINA and LEONILA URBINA on 

behalf of themselves and all others similarly 

situated, 

Plaintiffs,

 v.

FREEDOM MORTGAGE CORPORATION,

Defendant

No. 1:19-cv-01471-NONE-JLT

ORDER DECLINING TO APPROVE 

STIPULATION TO LIMITED CONSENT 

TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

JURISDICTION FOR PURPOSES

HEARING AND DECIDING PENDING 

MOTIONS ONLY

(Doc. No. 40)

On February 21, 2020, the parties to the above-captioned action filed a stipulation 

indicating their consent to have the assigned magistrate judge hear and decide defendant’s ripe

motions to dismiss and to stay, (Doc. Nos. 20 & 23), and plaintiffs’ ripe motion for leave to 

amend, (Doc. No. 25). (See Doc. No. 40.) However, the parties have not yet consented to the 

magistrate judge for all purposes pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).

While the court appreciates the parties’ willingness to ease court congestion, it declines to 

approve and accept their stipulation for limited consent to magistrate judge jurisdiction because 

the proposal does not appear to advance the interests of judicial efficiency. It is normally most

efficient for the judge1 who hears and decides any dispositive motions, to also preside over the 

 

1 Although this case has been “unassigned” and therefore does not formally have a district judge 

assigned to the matter, unless and until new judges are appointed and confirmed to this bench, the 

Case 1:19-cv-01471-JLT-CDB Document 45 Filed 03/12/20 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

2

trial of the action. This is because, in the undersigned’s experience, legal and factual issues raised 

in such motions frequently come up again at, before, or immediately after trial. 

Accordingly, the court declines to accept the parties’ proposed limited consent to 

magistrate judge jurisdiction for purposes of ruling on the pending motions. This decision is 

without prejudice to the parties making a specific showing of good cause as to why they believe 

limited consent to magistrate judge jurisdiction for purposes of a particular motion should be 

accepted in their case. Of course, the parties are also quite welcome to consent to magistrate 

judge jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1) for all purposes including trial and entry of 

judgment. Such consent to magistrate judge jurisdiction would change the judicial efficiency 

calculus laid out above and would almost certainly be approved and accepted. 

The pending motions remain under submission on the papers pursuant to Local Rule 

230(g). A written decision will issue as soon as is practicable. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 12, 2020 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 

undersigned will be presiding over any dispositive motion or trial set in this case. 

Case 1:19-cv-01471-JLT-CDB Document 45 Filed 03/12/20 Page 2 of 2