United States v. County of San Francisco

Background

The appearing parties filed a stipulation concerning priority and consented to magistrate-judge jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 636. The County of San Francisco had not appeared, and the Clerk of Court entered its default.

Jurisdictional issue

The court explained that federal law generally requires the consent of all named parties for a magistrate judge to exercise authority over the case, including parties that have not been served. When a party does not consent, the usual course is reassignment to a district judge unless the court can separate that party under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 21.

Rule 21 allows a court, on a motion or on its own, to add or remove a party or separate claims against a party when doing so is justified. The court described prior situations in which it had separated nonappearing parties, including a party unable to defend itself and a defendant in default. A separated defendant would be assigned to a separate but related case, while the main case would continue before the magistrate judge.

What the court ordered

The court stated that it could separate the County into a new case under Rule 21 if the parties agreed to that process. It asked the parties to confer and submit a joint updated statement as soon as practicable, preferably the following day. The court also asked them to address why the County had not appeared. The opinion does not contain a final ruling granting or denying a motion, separating the County, or deciding the underlying dispute.