Court Opinion

ID: 9487448
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 12:16:53.94882+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:52:16.656114
License: Public Domain

WELLFORD, Circuit Judge,
concurring:
This circuit has a very strict rule with respect to required consent of a party before a magistrate judge may enter a valid final judgment as to that party’s interests. In Jaliwala v. United States, 945 F.2d 221 (7th Cir.1991), this court went so far as to dismiss an appeal in a judgment exceeding $160,000,-000 because an intervenor party had not consented orally or in writing to trial by the magistrate judge. As in this case, “both attorneys were surprised by the disclosure of the defect” during questioning at oral argument. Id. at 223. Appellee argued, as does Mark I, Inc. here, that consent should be implied, but this court held that “conditional or implied consent is inconsistent with what this court requires to evince a party’s consent.” Id. at 224.
While I feel that defendant Gruber received a windfall in this result, I must concur in the judgment to remand for the reasons indicated by Judge Easterbrook.