United States v. Dracopoulos

Issue

The order addresses whether the case may remain before a magistrate judge. The appearing parties had filed a stipulation to priority, which the court said “probably is substantive,” and all appearing parties had consented to magistrate-judge jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 636. The County of San Francisco had not appeared, and the Clerk of Court had entered its default.

Legal framework

The court explained that Section 636(c) generally requires consent from all named parties before a case may be assigned to a magistrate judge, including parties that have not been served. When a party does not consent, the usual course is reassignment to a district judge unless the non-appearing party can be separated under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 21.

Rule 21 allows a court, on a motion or on its own, to add or drop a party or separate claims against a party when doing so is fair. The court identified two situations in which non-appearing parties had been separated: when a party cannot participate in litigation and when a defendant is in default.

Court’s action

The court said it could separate the County of San Francisco into a new case under Rule 21 if the parties agreed to that process. The new case would have a different case number but would remain assigned to the same magistrate judge; no additional filing fee would be required. The main case could proceed, while matters involving the defaulting defendant could be addressed in the separate case as described in the order.

The court asked the parties to confer and submit a joint updated statement as soon as practicable, preferably by the following day. It also asked them to address why the County had not appeared. The order did not grant or deny a motion to sever, and it did not resolve the underlying tax dispute.