Erickson Productions Inc v. Kraig R Kast

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: April 26, 2023
• Docket: 4:13-cv-05472
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 ERICKSON PRODUCTIONS INC, et al., 10 Case No. 13-cv-05472-DMR (RS) Plaintiffs, 11 v. ORDER DENYING MOTION TO 12 WITHDRAW CONSENT TO KRAIG RUDINGER KAST, et al., MAGISTRATE JUDGE 13 JURISDICTION Defendants. 14

15 16 Pro se Defendant Kraig Kast has filed a motion to withdraw consent to magistrate judge 17 jurisdiction; the motion has been referred to the undersigned as the Duty Judge. By way of 18 procedural background, the parties originally consented to magistrate judge jurisdiction in January 19 2014. See Dkts. 26, 27. A jury trial was held before a magistrate judge in April 2015, and 20 judgment was entered against Defendant. Four years later, a Ninth Circuit panel affirmed in part, 21 reversed in part, and remanded. See Dkt. 347. On remand, the case was reassigned to a different 22 magistrate judge,1 and judgment was again entered against Defendant, though without a jury trial. 23 On April 5, 2023, the Ninth Circuit reversed this decision in a memorandum opinion and 24 remanded for “a new [jury] trial to determine willfulness and statutory damages.” Dkt. 447, at 6. 25 This motion followed. Defendant argues “the Magistrate’s [sic] decisions . . . deprived 26

27 1 Defendant at this point filed a declination to magistrate judge jurisdiction, see Dkt. 352, but did 1 [him] of his Constitutional rights,” violated various statutes, “allowed the Plaintiffs’ attorneys to 2 || engage in fundamental procedural abuses in the first trial,” and involved “multiple procedural 3 errors in a remand,” among other things. Dkt. 448, at 8. These decisions, Defendant argues, 4 “unquestionably” constitute “extraordinary circumstances that provide good cause” to justify his 5 withdrawal of consent. Jd. 6 While the motion is timely, see United States v. Mortensen, 860 F.2d 948, 950 (9th Cir. 7 1988), in substance it appears to reflect little more than “mere dissatisfaction with a magistrate 8 || judge’s decision[s]” (or, more accurately, with the decisions of several magistrate judges). Branch 9 v. Umphenour, 936 F.3d 994, 1004 (9th Cir. 2019). Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(4), a movant must 10 || demonstrate “good cause” and/or “extraordinary circumstances” to justify withdrawal of consent 11 to magistrate judge jurisdiction, a standard the Ninth Circuit has called “a high bar that is difficult 12 || to satisfy.” Id. (quoting Savoca v. United States, 199 F. Supp. 3d 716, 721 (S.D.N.Y. 2016)). On 5 13 the current record, Defendant fails to meet this bar. The motion is therefore denied. 14 Defendant further moves to transfer the location of the trial to the San Francisco Division, 3 15 rather than the Oakland Division, citing the inconvenience and expense of traveling to Oakland. 16 || Determination of this motion is reserved for the assigned magistrate judge to decide.

|| rr1sso ORDERED. 19 20 || Dated: April 26, 2023 21 TN kn RICHARD SEEBORG _ Chief United States District Judge 23 24 25 26 27 28 ORDER DENYING MOTION TO WITHDRAW CONSENT TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE JURISDICTION . CASE No. 13-cv-05472-DMR