Ristie v. United States

N.D. California

Ristie v. United States

DecidedFebruary 28, 2025

Docket3:25-cv-01221

StatusUnknown

This text of Ristie v. United States (Ristie v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, N.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Ristie v. United States, (N.D. Cal. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 GORDON RISTIE, Case No. 25-cv-01221-TSH

8 Plaintiff, ORDER DISREGARDING 9 v. WITHDRAWAL OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE CONSENT 10 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Re: Dkt. Nos. 14, 22 11 Defendant.

12 13 On February 14, 2025, Plaintiff Gordon Ristie filed a consent to have a United States 14 magistrate judge conduct all further proceedings in this case, including trial and entry of final 15 judgment, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). ECF No. 8. However, he subsequently filed a request 16 for reassignment on February 25, 2025. ECF No. 22. 17 A party to a federal civil case has, subject to some exceptions, a constitutional right to 18 proceed before an Article III judge. Dixon v. Ylst, 990 F.2d 478, 479 (9th Cir. 1993) (citation 19 omitted). The right to an Article III court can be waived, allowing parties to consent to trial before 20 a magistrate judge. Id. at 479-80; Wellness Int’l Network, Ltd. v. Sharif, 575 U.S. 665, 678 21 (2015); 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1). Once a civil case is referred to a magistrate judge under section 22 636(c), the reference can be withdrawn only by the court, and only “for good cause shown on its 23 own motion, or under extraordinary circumstances shown by any party.” Dixon, 990 F.2d at 480 24 (simplified). “There is no absolute right, in a civil case, to withdraw consent to trial and other 25 proceedings before a magistrate judge.” Id. 26 Here, Plaintiff has not shown good cause or extraordinary circumstances to withdraw his 27 consent. Further, as there is a pending motion to dismiss and a pending motion to amend, 1 no reassignment shall occur. See, e.g., McCracken v. Wells Fargo Bank NA, 2017 WL 6209178, 2 at *1 (N.D. Cal. May 6, 2017) (noting that allowing withdrawal of consent would delay the 3 proceedings); Malasky v. Julian, 2018 WL 4679958, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 24, 2018) 4 || (disregarding withdrawal of consent where no good cause or extraordinary circumstances shown). 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 6 7 Dated: February 28, 2025 8 TAA. | THOMAS S. HIXSON 9 United States Magistrate Judge 10 11 12

Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 GORDON RISTIE, Case No. 25-cv-01221-TSH

8 Plaintiff, ORDER DISREGARDING 9 v. WITHDRAWAL OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE CONSENT 10 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Re: Dkt. Nos. 14, 22 11 Defendant.

12 13 On February 14, 2025, Plaintiff Gordon Ristie filed a consent to have a United States 14 magistrate judge conduct all further proceedings in this case, including trial and entry of final 15 judgment, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). ECF No. 8. However, he subsequently filed a request 16 for reassignment on February 25, 2025. ECF No. 22. 17 A party to a federal civil case has, subject to some exceptions, a constitutional right to 18 proceed before an Article III judge. Dixon v. Ylst, 990 F.2d 478, 479 (9th Cir. 1993) (citation 19 omitted). The right to an Article III court can be waived, allowing parties to consent to trial before 20 a magistrate judge. Id. at 479-80; Wellness Int’l Network, Ltd. v. Sharif, 575 U.S. 665, 678 21 (2015); 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1). Once a civil case is referred to a magistrate judge under section 22 636(c), the reference can be withdrawn only by the court, and only “for good cause shown on its 23 own motion, or under extraordinary circumstances shown by any party.” Dixon, 990 F.2d at 480 24 (simplified). “There is no absolute right, in a civil case, to withdraw consent to trial and other 25 proceedings before a magistrate judge.” Id. 26 Here, Plaintiff has not shown good cause or extraordinary circumstances to withdraw his 27 consent. Further, as there is a pending motion to dismiss and a pending motion to amend, 1 no reassignment shall occur. See, e.g., McCracken v. Wells Fargo Bank NA, 2017 WL 6209178, 2 at *1 (N.D. Cal. May 6, 2017) (noting that allowing withdrawal of consent would delay the 3 proceedings); Malasky v. Julian, 2018 WL 4679958, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 24, 2018) 4 || (disregarding withdrawal of consent where no good cause or extraordinary circumstances shown). 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 6 7 Dated: February 28, 2025 8 TAA. | THOMAS S. HIXSON 9 United States Magistrate Judge 10 11 12

Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Ristie v. United States, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ristie-v-united-states-cand-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack