Vista Food Exchange, Inc. v. Lawson Foods, LLC
- Andrew Carter
- 1:17-cv-07454
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Vista Food Exchange v. Lawson Foods, Judge Carter denied Vista’s motion because its 2019 consent did not cover the remaining proceedings.
Vista Food Exchange’s motion was denied; the parties may file a new consent giving Judge Netburn authority for all purposes, or proceed with an inquest under the existing amended order of reference.
What happened
Vista Food Exchange asked the court to enforce the parties’ 2019 agreement allowing a magistrate judge to handle certain proceedings and enter a final order.
That agreement covered only the contempt and sanctions motion against Lawson Foods, LLC, Fortress Foods, LLC, and Simon Law that had been heard in July 2019. Judge Netburn later entered a final order resolving that motion in Vista’s favor.
Judge Carter denied Vista’s motion, ruling that the agreement did not give Judge Netburn authority over the remaining proceedings or to enter a final order in the entire action. The parties may file a new consent covering all purposes, including entering judgment; otherwise, the case will proceed with an inquest before Judge Netburn.
The detailed version
- Vista Food Exchange, Inc. v. Lawson Foods, LLC · No. 1:17-cv-07454
- Andrew Carter
- Apr. 9, 2021
Background
Vista Food Exchange, Inc. moved to enforce the parties’ July 2019 Consent to Jurisdiction and sought other relief. Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1), a magistrate judge may conduct civil proceedings and enter judgment when all parties consent and the district court designates the judge to exercise that authority.
The written consent covered “any and all proceedings and enter a final order” as to the identified motion for contempt and sanctions against Fortress Foods, LLC, Lawson Foods, LLC, and Simon Law. That motion was the subject of an evidentiary hearing before Judge Netburn on July 16, 2019. On November 1, 2019, Judge Netburn entered a final order resolving the contempt motion in Vista’s favor.
The Court’s Analysis
The court concluded that the July 2019 consent was limited to the specified contempt and sanctions motion. It did not extend to the remaining proceedings or authorize Judge Netburn to make all determinations and enter a final order in the entire action. The court therefore found that the consent did not provide a basis to confirm Judge Netburn’s jurisdiction for the broader relief Vista requested.
Disposition
Judge Andrew L. Carter, Jr. DENIED Vista’s motion. The court stated that the parties could consent to Judge Netburn’s jurisdiction for all purposes, including entry of judgment, by filing a new consent. It also stated that the parties could withhold consent without adverse substantive consequences. Unless a new consent is filed, the parties will proceed with an inquest before Judge Netburn under the amended order of reference. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the motion.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.