Jerus v. Honda Corporation
- Edward Davila
- 5:20-cv-01931
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 1
Jerus v. Honda Corporation: Judge DeMarchi ordered reassignment to a district judge because all parties had not consented to magistrate jurisdiction.
Janet A. Jerus, Honda Corporation and the other defendants, and the pending hearings and appearances in the case. The motion to dismiss remained unresolved.
What happened
In Janet A. Jerus v. Honda Corporation, et al., Honda of Stevens Creek and Joe Spurrier had asked to dismiss the complaint. The opinion did not decide that request.
The magistrate judge said the parties had not all agreed to proceed before a magistrate judge, and several defendants had not appeared or been shown to have been served. The case therefore had to be sent to a district judge.
Judge Virginia K. DeMarchi ordered reassignment, vacated pending hearings and scheduled appearances, and said they would be reset by the new judge. The case could return to her if all parties later consented.
The detailed version
- Jerus v. Honda Corporation · No. 5:20-cv-01931
- Edward Davila
- May 26, 2020
Background
Honda of Stevens Creek and Joe Spurrier moved to dismiss Janet A. Jerus's complaint. The opinion also states that neither those defendants nor Jerus consented to proceeding before a magistrate judge. Several defendants had not appeared, and the record did not indicate that they had been served.
Ruling
The court explained that, without the consent of all parties, it did not have jurisdiction over the matter as a magistrate judge and had to refer the case to a district judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636 and the cited Ninth Circuit decision. It ordered that the case be reassigned to a district judge. It did not rule on the pending motion to dismiss.
Effect of the Order
All pending motion hearings and scheduled appearances were vacated and were to be reset by the newly assigned judge. The order stated that, if all parties later gave full consent, the case could be reassigned back to Judge DeMarchi. The opinion does not state the merits of Jerus's claims or the outcome of the motion to dismiss.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.