Reed v. Benjamin Moore & Co.

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: April 23, 2025
• Docket: 1:25-cv-00214
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10

11 IAN C. REED, individually, and on behalf of Case No. 1:25-cv-00214-SAB all others similarly situated, 12 ORDER ADVISING PARTIES TO Plaintiff, CONSIDER WHETHER TO CONSENT TO 13 THE JURISDICTION OF A MAGISTRATE v. JUDGE 14 BENJAMIN MOORE & CO., THREE-DAY DEADLINE 15 Defendant. 16 17 On February 18, 2025, Defendant Benjamin Moore & Co. removed this action from 18 California Superior Court, Fresno County. (ECF No. 1.) On March 20, 2025, Plaintiff Ian C. 19 Reed filed a motion to remand. (ECF No. 12.) The motion has been fully briefed, and the Court 20 held a hearing on the matter on April 23, 2025. (ECF Nos. 13, 15, 16.) 21 Following amendment of the Local Rules effective March 1, 2022, a certain percentage 22 of civil cases are directly assigned to a Magistrate Judge only, with consent or declination of 23 consent forms due within 90 days from the date of filing of the action. L.R. App. A(m)(1). This 24 action has been directly assigned to a Magistrate Judge only, and neither party has yet filed a 25 notice of consent. If the parties consent, the Court will be able to directly issue an order 26 regarding the motion to remand. If the parties do not consent, the Court will issue a findings and 27 recommendation, which may be adopted, modified, or rejected by a District Judge following a fourteen-day objection period. 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(C). 1 For the parties’ benefit, the Court observes that “[j]Judges in the Eastern District of 2 | California carry the heaviest caseloads in the nation.” Rush Air Sports, LLC v. RDJ Grp. 3 | Holdings, LLC, No. 1:19-cv-00385-LJO-JLT, 2019 WL 4879211, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 3, 2019); 4 | Pizana v. SanMedica Int’], LLC, No. 1:18-cv-00644-DAD-SKO, 2020 WL 469336, at *7 n.8 5 | (E.D. Cal. Jan. 29, 2020); see_also Hon. Lawrence J. O’Neill, et al., An Important Letter to 6 | Congress from the Judges of the Eastern District of California Regarding Our Caseload Crisis, 19, 2018) https:/Awww.caed.uscourts.gov/caednew/index.cfm/news-archive/important- 8 | letter-re-caseload-crisis/ (noting that in 2018, “[e]ach District Judge handles an average of 9 | approximately 900 cases at any given time, more than double the nationwide average”). 10 Therefore, the Court advises the parties “to []consider consent to conduct all further 11 | proceedings before a Magistrate Judge, whose schedules are far more realistic and 12 | accommodating to parties.” Rush Air, 2019 WL 4879211, at *1; see 28 U.S.C. 636(c)(2). That 13 | said, the parties “are free to withhold consent without adverse substantive consequences.” 28 14 | U.S.C. 636(c)(2). 15 Accordingly, the Court HEREBY ORDERS that the parties shall have three (3) days 16 | from the entry of this order to consider whether to consent to the jurisdiction of a Magistrate 17 | Judge. If a party would like to consent, they are directed to file a notice indicating as such. If 18 | either party does not file a notice of consent within three days, the Court will construe that as 19 | withholding consent. Again, either party is “free to withhold consent without adverse 20 | substantive consequences.” Id. 21 IT IS SO ORDERED. DAM Le 23 | Dated: _April 23, 2025 _ OO STANLEY A. BOONE 24 United States Magistrate Judge 25 26 27 28