Siegler v. Sorrento Therapeutics, Inc.
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Gonzalo P. Curiel (author)
Analysis
Plaintiff moved to transfer two pending motions (reconsideration and recusal) to a Magistrate Judge, but the Defendants did not consent to the transfer and the Plaintiff failed to obtain a hearing date as required by local rules. The court dismissed the motion for failure to comply with 28 U.S.C. § 636 and Local Rule 7.1.e.1.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Motion to transfer motions to Magistrate Judge dismissed“Thus, the Court DISMISSES Plaintiffs motion for failure to comply with 28 U.S.C. § 636 and Local Rule 7.1.¢.1.” | agree with court The court correctly identified that 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1) requires party consent for a magistrate judge to conduct proceedings and order judgment. The order recites that the Plaintiff acknowledged the Defendants had not consented. Additionally, the court cited Local Rule 7.1.e.1, which requires obtaining a hearing date for motions where the court's ruling is necessary, and noted the Plaintiff filed the motion without doing so. The dismissal for failure to comply with these statutory and local rule requirements is supported by the record recited in the order. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly applies the statutory requirement for consent under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1) and the local rule requirement for a hearing date. The court relies on binding Ninth Circuit authority regarding the force of local rules and inherent docket control. The reasoning directly addresses the deficiencies in the Plaintiff's motion (lack of consent, lack of hearing date) and supports the dismissal.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SARA ELIZABETH SIEGLER, et al. Case No. 3:18-cv-01681-GPC-MSB 12 Plaintiffs, ORDER DENYING MOTION TO 13 vs. HEAR MOTIONS FOR RECONSIDERATION AND 14 SORRENTO THERAPEUTICS, INC., et RECUSAL BEFORE THE al., MAGISTRATE JUDGE 15 Defendants. 16 [ECF No. 145.]
17 On August 20, 2019, Plaintiff Sara Elizabeth Siegler’s (“Plaintiff”) filed a motion 18 for reconsideration of the judgment entered on August 2, 2019. ECF Nos. 126, 127, 134. 19 The Court noticed the motion for a hearing on November 15, 2019. ECF No. 139. On 20 September 10, 2019, Plaintiff filed a subsequent motion seeking the Court’s recusal from 21 this matter. ECF No. 142. To accommodate Plaintiff’s concurrent request for an 22 extension in the briefing schedule on the motion for reconsideration, and for the sake of 23 judicial economy, the Court set a new hearing on December 20, 2019 to hear the recusal 24 and reconsideration motions. ECF No. 143. On October 29, 2019, Plaintiff filed another 25 motion seeking that the two pending motions, ECF Nos. 134, 142, be transferred to 26 Magistrate Judge Berg. ECF No. 145. The Court now addresses Plaintiff’s latest motion. 27 1 || I. Analysis 2 “Upon the consent of the parties, a... United States magistrate judge .. . may 3 || conduct any or all proceedings in a jury or nonjury civil matter and order the entry of 4 ||judgment in the case.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1). The parties’ consent may be inferred from 5 || their conduct, Roell v. Withrow, 538 U.S. 580, 590 775 (2003). Nonetheless, to preserve 6 || the litigant’s right to be heard by an Article III judge, the Act requires that magistrate 7 judges only exercise such powers when acting “upon the consent of the parties.” See 8 || Baker v. Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahirya, 810 F. Supp. 2d 90, 98 (D.D.C. 9 2011) (citing Roell, 538 U.S. at 585); see also Fulton v. Robinson, 289 F.3d 188, 199 (2d 10 || Cir. 2002) (‘It was well within the court’s discretion to reject reference to a magistrate 11 ||judge when dispositive motions were pending before the district judge.”). 12 Likewise, per the local rules of this District, parties must obtain a hearing date for 13 || any motion where the “court’s ruling is necessary.” CivLR 7.1.e.1. “Local rules have the 14 || ‘force of law’ and are binding upon the parties and upon the court.” Prof’! Programs 15 || Grp. v. Dep’t of Commerce, 29 F.3d 1349, 1353 (9th Cir. 1994) (citations omitted). 16 || Where a party fails to comply with the local rules in filing a motion, a court may dismiss 17 motion. See Atchinson, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. Hercules Inc., 146 F.3d 1071, 18 || 1074 (9th Cir. 1998) (“District courts have inherent power to control their dockets.”). 19 Plaintiff acknowledges that Defendants have not consented to hearing the two 20 || pending motions before the Magistrate Judge. ECF No. 145 at 4 n.2. Plaintiff also filed 21 latest motion without first obtaining a hearing date. Thus, the Court DISMISSES 22 || Plaintiffs motion for failure to comply with 28 U.S.C. § 636 and Local Rule 7.1.¢.1. 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. 24 Dated: November 20, 2019 = 26 United States District Judge 27 28