Aerofund Holdings, Inc. v. Brown
- Haywood Gilliam
- 4:20-cv-03747
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Aerofund Holdings, Inc. v. Brown, Judge Demarchi reassigned the case to a district judge, discharged the show-cause order, and vacated the case-management conference.
Aerofund Holdings, Inc. and the defendants, including the defendants who had reportedly settled with Aerofund; the case was reassigned for a district judge to decide the pending request for stipulated judgment.
What happened
Aerofund Holdings, Inc. v. Brown involved Aerofund’s failure to file a required joint case-management statement by the court’s deadline. The court issued an order asking why the case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute.
Aerofund responded that it had settled with several defendants and was reducing another settlement to writing. It attributed the missed filing and deadlines to its lawyer’s inadvertence. Because no defendant had appeared or agreed to have a magistrate judge handle the case, the court said it could not enter judgment.
Judge Virginia K. Demarchi reassigned the case to a district judge, discharged the order to show cause, and vacated the scheduled case-management conference. The newly assigned judge will decide pending matters, including Aerofund’s request for entry of a stipulated judgment.
The detailed version
- Aerofund Holdings, Inc. v. Brown · No. 4:20-cv-03747
- Haywood Gilliam
- Nov. 17, 2020
Background
The court had continued the initial case-management conference and ordered the parties to file a joint case-management statement by November 10, 2020. No party filed the statement. The defendants had not appeared in the action or consented to magistrate-judge jurisdiction, and the court issued an order to show cause—an order requiring an explanation—why the action should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute.
Parties’ representations
In its response, Aerofund stated that it had reached settlement agreements with Lisa Bassham Brown, MBROWN Tech Services, MBrown Tech Services, LLC, and Mike Brown, and that those defendants stipulated to entry of judgment. Aerofund also stated that it had reached a settlement agreement with LMI Systems LLC that the parties were reducing to writing. Aerofund’s counsel attributed the missed case-management statement and failure to seek relief from deadlines to inadvertence.
Ruling
The court concluded that, because no defendant had appeared or consented to magistrate-judge jurisdiction, it had authority to act only on non-dispositive matters. Under 28 U.S.C. § 636 and the cited precedent, the court could not enter judgment against a party without the parties’ consent. It therefore ordered the case reassigned to a district judge. The order discharged the order to show cause, vacated all scheduled appearances, including the initial case-management conference, and stated that the newly assigned judge would decide pending motions, including Aerofund’s request for entry of a stipulated judgment.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.