Rodionova v. Qatar Airways Group
- Thomas Hixson
- 4:25-cv-05838
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Rodionova v. Qatar Airways Group, Judge Hixson required Rodionova to file any motion seeking to withdraw her magistrate-judge consent by August 13, 2025.
Iana Rodionova, whose request to change from magistrate-judge proceedings to district-judge proceedings was required to be made by motion and subject to review by the general duty judge.
What happened
In Rodionova v. Qatar Airways Group, Iana Rodionova first consented to a magistrate judge handling the case, then asked to proceed before a district judge instead.
The court explained that withdrawing consent generally requires a showing of good cause or extraordinary circumstances. It directed Rodionova to file a motion to withdraw consent by August 13, 2025, if she wished to pursue that request.
Judge Thomas S. Hixson ordered that any withdrawal motion be referred to the general duty judge for decision. The order did not decide the underlying dispute.
The detailed version
- Rodionova v. Qatar Airways Group · No. 4:25-cv-05838
- Thomas Hixson
- July 30, 2025
Background
Iana Rodionova filed a consent to magistrate-judge jurisdiction on July 10, 2025. On July 28, 2025, she filed a declination to proceed before a magistrate judge and requested reassignment to a district judge.
Legal standard
The court cited 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1), which requires all parties’ consent before jurisdiction can vest in a magistrate judge. It also explained that a party does not have an absolute right to withdraw consent in a civil case. Under the cited statute and authorities, a district judge may allow withdrawal for good cause or when a party shows extraordinary circumstances.
Order
The court did not rule that Rodionova had established a basis to withdraw her consent. Instead, it directed that, if she sought to withdraw the July 10 consent, she must file a motion by August 13, 2025. The court stated that the general duty judge would decide any such motion. The order did not address the merits of the underlying case.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.