Ritchson v. John Ross Enterprises, Inc.

Full title: ANDREW RITCHSON, Plaintiff, v. JOHN ROSS ENTERPRISES, INC. dba SIERRA…

Court: United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, E.D. California

Date published: Oct 20, 2015

2:15-cv-01459-GEB-EFB (E.D. Cal. Oct. 20, 2015)

Opinion

ANDREW RITCHSON, Plaintiff, v. JOHN ROSS ENTERPRISES, INC. dba SIERRA PAINT AND DRYWALL, a California Corporation; and NEUBAUER-JENNISON, INC., a California Corporation; Defendants. No. 2:15-cv-01459-GEB-EFB United States District Court, E.D. California. October 20, 2015

          ORDER

          GARLAND E. BURRELL, Jr., Senior District Judge.

         The parties state in the Joint Status Report filed on October 9, 2015: "Defendants have consented to a magistrate judge for trial purposes at this time. Plaintiff has likewise consented to a magistrate judge." (JSR 5:5-6, ECF No. 14.) However, it is unclear whether each party consents to the assigned magistrate judge conducting all further proceedings in this case, and Defendant John Ross Enterprises, Inc. has not filed its consent to Jurisdiction of United States Magistrate Judge under Local Rule 305. Should Defendant John Ross Enterprises, Inc. consent to having a magistrate judge conduct all proceedings in this action and file said consent, the undersigned judge will review the matter for possible reference at that time.

         Further, in light of the referenced ambiguity, the Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Conference scheduled for hearing on October 26, 2015, is continued to November 23, 2015, at 9:00 a.m. A further joint status report shall be filed no later than fourteen (14) days prior to the Status Conference.