E.D. v. Dwight Childs

Background

E.D. and his father filed the action in 2020. The case was assigned to Magistrate Judge Sallie Kim. E.D.’s counsel filed a consent to magistrate jurisdiction through his then-proposed guardian ad litem. After changes in the parties, counsel, and guardian ad litem, the parties filed three joint case-management statements expressly stating that they consented to Judge Kim.

After a January 31, 2022 case-management conference, at which a trial date was set and Judge Kim stated that certain previously excluded documents could not be introduced at trial, E.D. filed a declination-of-consent form. Judge Kim required E.D. to file a motion to withdraw consent. E.D. filed that motion on February 15, 2022. By then, defendants Mira Yune and Mario Bandes had also filed written consent to magistrate jurisdiction.

Analysis

Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(4) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 73, once a civil case is referred to a magistrate judge with the parties’ consent, the reference may be withdrawn only for good cause or extraordinary circumstances. The court explained that these are demanding standards and that dissatisfaction with a magistrate judge’s decisions or unsupported accusations of bias are insufficient.

The court rejected E.D.’s argument that he had never consented through his guardian ad litem. It held that consent need not use a specific form or be express, and that E.D. had expressly consented in the three joint case-management statements. The court also held that E.D. was bound by the consent given through his counsel. In addition, E.D.’s extensive participation in the case and agreement to a trial date showed implied consent.

The court also rejected E.D.’s argument that the good-cause and extraordinary-circumstances standards did not apply because Yune and Bandes had not consented before his February 1 filing. The court held that the February 1 declination form did not itself effectively withdraw E.D.’s consent and that Yune and Bandes had consented before E.D. filed the motion on February 15. The court therefore found that all parties had consented when the motion was filed. It distinguished the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Gilmore because that case involved withdrawal before all parties had consented.

The court found that E.D. had not shown good cause or extraordinary circumstances. It also stated that, even under the discretionary approach E.D. proposed, the length of time the case had been before Judge Kim, her rulings on substantive issues, and the parties’ prior participation without objection weighed against reassignment.

Sanctions

The defendants argued that E.D.’s motion was an abuse of the judicial process and an attempt to choose a different judge. Judge White declined to impose sanctions because the record did not establish that the motion was improper.

Disposition

The court denied E.D.’s motion to withdraw consent to magistrate jurisdiction. It also declined to impose sanctions on E.D.