Travelers Property Casualty Company of America v. Critchfield Mechanical, Inc.
- Beth Freeman
- 5:21-cv-01319
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Travelers Property Casualty Company of America v. Critchfield Mechanical, Judge Demarchi reassigned the remand request to a district judge because all parties had not consented to magistrate jurisdiction.
Travelers Property Casualty Company of America, Critchfield Mechanical, Inc., and the other defendants were affected by the reassignment; the pending request to return the case to state court remained unresolved in this order.
What happened
Travelers Property Casualty Company of America v. Critchfield Mechanical, Inc. was removed from California state court to federal court by Critchfield Mechanical. Travelers and Critchfield later jointly asked to send the case back to state court.
The order did not decide whether the case should be sent back. Because all parties had not consented to a magistrate judge’s authority, the case had to be referred to a district judge.
Judge Virginia K. Demarchi ordered that the case be reassigned to a district judge. The order did not resolve the pending request to return the case to state court.
The detailed version
- Travelers Property Casualty Company of America v. Critchfield Mechanical, Inc. · No. 5:21-cv-01319
- Beth Freeman
- Mar. 15, 2021
Background
Critchfield Mechanical, Inc. removed the action from the Superior Court of California for Santa Clara County to the federal court. Travelers Property Casualty Company of America and Critchfield then filed a joint request asking the federal court to remand, or return, the case to state court.
Reassignment
The parties had not stated whether they consented to or declined magistrate-judge jurisdiction. Other defendants had not yet appeared or stated their positions. The court explained that a magistrate judge could not issue a remand order without the consent of all parties.
Disposition
Judge Virginia K. Demarchi ordered that the case be reassigned to a district judge. The order did not decide the parties’ request for remand or otherwise reach the merits of the dispute.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.