Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Apr. 27, 2021

Pareja v. 184 Food Corp.

Judge
Stewart Aaron
Docket
1:18-cv-05887
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil Procedure
In one sentence

Pareja v. 184 Food Corp.: Judge Oetken addressed when a magistrate judge could issue a final decision for different defendants.

Who this affects

The plaintiffs, the defendants who appeared, and the non-appearing defendants in the case. The consent was valid for the plaintiffs and appearing defendants, while any final decision concerning the non-appearing defendants had to be issued as a report and recommendation.

What happened

In Pareja v. 184 Food Corp., the parties consented to having a magistrate judge handle all proceedings, but that consent did not apply equally to every defendant.

The consent was valid for the plaintiffs and the defendants who appeared in the case. The defendants who did not appear had not consented to the magistrate judge’s authority.

Judge Oetken ordered that any final decision involving the non-appearing defendants must be issued as a report and recommendation, rather than as a final order by the magistrate judge.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Pareja v. 184 Food Corp. · No. 1:18-cv-05887
Judge
Stewart Aaron
Date
Apr. 27, 2021

Issue

The order addressed the effect of the parties’ consent to have a United States magistrate judge conduct all proceedings.

Ruling

On January 17, 2020, the parties consented to magistrate-judge jurisdiction. The court held that this consent was valid as to the plaintiffs and the defendants who had appeared in the case. The non-appearing defendants had not consented to the magistrate judge’s jurisdiction.

Because those defendants had not consented, any final decision concerning them would have to take the form of a report and recommendation. The order relied generally on Second Circuit authority stating that, without consent, a magistrate judge cannot issue a final order.

Disposition and scope

The order concerned judicial authority and the form of a future decision; it did not decide the underlying claims described in the opinion.

The authoritative version

Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.