Janet Torres v. Western Refining Retail, LLC, et al.

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: November 7, 2025
• Docket: 1:25-cv-01139
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JANET TORRES, Case No. 1:25-cv-01139-CDB

12 Plaintiff, ORDER VACATING HEARING ON MOTION TO REMAND AND INITIAL 13 v. SCHEDULING CONFERENCE

14 WESTERN REFINING RETAIL, LLC, et (Docs. 2, 4) al., 15 Clerk of the Court to Appoint District Judge Defendants. 16

17 Background 18 Plaintiff Janet Torres (“Plaintiff”) initiated this action with the filing of a complaint in 19 state court on June 30, 2025, against Defendants Western Refining Retail, LLC; Speedway, LLC; 20 7-Eleven, Inc.; Seven-Eleven Japan; Seven & I Holdings; Derrick Smith; Farron Justice; and 21 Tammy Anderson (collectively, “Defendants”). (Doc. 1-5 at 6-30). Defendant 7-Eleven, Inc., 22 removed the action on September 5, 2025. (Doc. 1). On October 8, 2025, Plaintiff filed a motion 23 to remand in which she noticed a motion hearing date of November 20, 2025, before the 24 undersigned. (Doc. 4). Defendant 7-Eleven, Inc. filed an opposition to Plaintiff’s motion on 25 October 22, 2025. (Doc. 6). Plaintiff filed a reply on October 30, 2025. (Doc. 8). Plaintiff 26 acknowledges that the individual defendants have not been served with summons and complaint 27 (see Doc. 4 at 10-11) and it is unclear whether, aside from 7-Eleven, Inc., any of the other named, organizational defendants have been served (see Doc. 6 at 1). 1 Discussion 2 Consent to magistrate judge jurisdiction may not be entered absent consent of all parties, 3 | including unserved defendants. Williams v. King, 875 F.3d 500, 504 (9th Cir. 2017). Here, 4 | Defendants Smith, Justice, and Anderson, and perhaps other of the organizational defendants, 5 || remain unserved. Thus, because there is not full consent among all parties to the jurisdiction of 6 | a magistrate judge, Plaintiff has improperly noticed the motion to remand before the 7 | undersigned. See Flam vy. Flam, 788 F.3d 1043, 1047 (9th Cir. 2015) (holding that a motion to 8 | remand is dispositive). Additionally, it follows that, as the motion to remand is dispositive and 9 | aruling on the motion may dispose of all federal proceedings in this case, the initial scheduling 10 | conference may, therefore, be rendered moot. 11 As such, the Court will vacate the hearing on the motion to remand and the initial 12 | scheduling conference and direct the Clerk of the Court to randomly assign a district judge to 13 | this action. Following reassignment of the action, Plaintiff may re-notice the hearing on the 14 | motion to remand in front of the assigned district judge. 15 Conclusion and Order 16 The Clerk of the Court is directed to randomly assign a District Judge. 17 For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 18 1. The initial scheduling conference set for December 9, 2025, is VACATED, to be 19 reset as necessary following disposition of Plaintiff's pending motion to remand; and 20 2. The hearing on Plaintiff's pending motion to remand (Doc. 4) is VACATED. 21 | ITIS SO ORDERED. 22 Dated: _ November 7, 2025 | Ww VL D R~ 23 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 24 25 26 27 28