Erickson Productions Inc v. Kraig R Kast
- Donna Ryu
- 4:13-cv-05472
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Erickson Productions Inc. v. Kraig Rudinger Kast, Chief Judge Seeborg denied Kast’s request to withdraw consent to magistrate-judge jurisdiction and left the trial-location issue for another judge.
Pro se defendant Kraig Kast, whose motion to withdraw consent to magistrate-judge jurisdiction was denied; the assigned magistrate judge will decide the separate request to change the trial location.
What happened
In Erickson Productions Inc. v. Kraig Rudinger Kast, the parties had consented to magistrate-judge jurisdiction, and the case had already gone through a trial, appeals, and remands. After the Ninth Circuit ordered a new jury trial on willfulness and statutory damages, pro se defendant Kraig Kast asked to withdraw that consent.
Kast argued that prior magistrate judges’ decisions had violated his constitutional rights, violated statutes, and involved procedural errors and abuses. The court found that the motion mainly reflected dissatisfaction with earlier decisions and did not meet the required high standard of good cause or extraordinary circumstances. The court denied the motion.
Chief Judge Richard Seeborg also stated that Kast’s separate request to move the trial from the Oakland Division to the San Francisco Division would be decided by the assigned magistrate judge. The opinion is signed by Richard Seeborg, although the supplied case metadata identifies Donna Ryu as the judge.
The detailed version
- Erickson Productions Inc v. Kraig R Kast · No. 4:13-cv-05472
- Donna Ryu
- Apr. 26, 2023
Background
The parties originally consented to magistrate-judge jurisdiction in January 2014. A jury trial took place before a magistrate judge in April 2015, and judgment was entered against defendant Kraig Kast. The Ninth Circuit later affirmed in part, reversed in part, and sent the case back. After reassignment to a different magistrate judge, judgment was again entered against Kast without a jury trial. On April 5, 2023, the Ninth Circuit reversed that decision and ordered a new jury trial to determine willfulness and statutory damages.
Motion to Withdraw Consent
Kast, who was representing himself, moved to withdraw his consent to magistrate-judge jurisdiction. He argued that prior decisions had deprived him of constitutional rights, violated various statutes, and involved procedural abuses and errors. The court noted that the motion was timely, but explained that 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(4) requires a showing of good cause or extraordinary circumstances. The Ninth Circuit has described this as a high and difficult-to-satisfy standard.
The court concluded that Kast’s motion appeared to reflect dissatisfaction with decisions by several magistrate judges rather than the required good cause or extraordinary circumstances. The court held that he had not met the applicable standard and denied the motion to withdraw consent.
Trial Location
Kast also asked to transfer the trial from the Oakland Division to the San Francisco Division because of the inconvenience and expense of traveling to Oakland. The court did not decide that request. Instead, it reserved determination of the issue for the assigned magistrate judge.
Disposition
Chief United States District Judge Richard Seeborg denied the motion to withdraw consent to magistrate-judge jurisdiction. The request to transfer the trial location was left for the assigned magistrate judge to decide.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.