Brooke v. Woodside Hotel Group LTD
- William Alsup
- 3:20-cv-05821
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 1
In Brooke v. Woodside Hotel Group LTD, Judge Demarchi reassigned the case to a district judge because the parties had not consented to magistrate jurisdiction.
Theresa Brooke and Woodside Hotel Group Ltd.; their case was reassigned to a district judge, and pending hearings and scheduled appearances were vacated.
What happened
Brooke v. Woodside Hotel Group LTD concerns a motion by Woodside Hotel Group Ltd. to dismiss Theresa Brooke’s complaint. The opinion does not decide that motion.
The parties had not consented to proceed before a magistrate judge. The court said that, without everyone’s consent, it lacked jurisdiction to handle the matter as the assigned magistrate judge.
The court ordered reassignment to a district judge, vacated pending hearings and scheduled appearances, and said the case could return to the magistrate judge if all parties consented. Judge Virginia K. Demarchi issued the order.
The detailed version
- Brooke v. Woodside Hotel Group LTD · No. 3:20-cv-05821
- William Alsup
- Sept. 21, 2020
Background
Theresa Brooke sued Woodside Hotel Group Ltd. Woodside moved to dismiss Brooke’s complaint. The opinion does not rule on that motion.
The case had been assigned to Magistrate Judge Virginia K. Demarchi. Neither party had consented to proceed before a magistrate judge. The order states that, without consent from all parties, the magistrate judge did not have jurisdiction over the matter and therefore had to refer it to a district judge.
Ruling
The court ordered that the case be reassigned to a district judge. It vacated all pending motion hearings and scheduled appearances, which the newly assigned judge would reset. The order also states that the case could be reassigned back to Judge Demarchi if all parties later consented to magistrate-judge jurisdiction. The court did not decide Woodside’s motion to dismiss or the underlying claims.
Disposition
Procedural reassignment to a district judge; no ruling on the pending motion to dismiss.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.