Opinion
23-cv-02105-LJC
05-21-2024
MAYER AMSCHEL ROTHSCHILD, Plaintiff, v. STEPHANIE ANN GILDRED, et al., Defendants.
ORDER REQUIRING REFILING OF DECLINATION AS NOTICED MOTION PURSUANT TO CIVIL LOCAL RULE 7-2 RE: ECF NO. 31
LISA J. CISNEROS UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
On August 28, 2023, Plaintiff Mayer Amschel Rothschild filed a consent to proceed before a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636. ECF No. 15. On May 18, 2024, Mr. Rothschild filed a declination to proceed before a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636. ECF No. 31. If Mr. Rothschild wishes to withdraw his consent to proceed before a magistrate judge, then he must file a motion to do so-he cannot withdraw his consent simply by filing a declination form. See E.D. v. Cnty. of Contra Costa, No. 20-CV-03014-SK (JSW), 2022 WL 1015992, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 5, 2022) (“[T]he earlier filing of the declination form did not constitute an effective withdrawal of Plaintiff's consent to magistrate jurisdiction. Rather, the court required Plaintiff to submit a motion to withdraw consent...”); Stuckey v. Juarez, No. 1:18 cv-01557-SAB(PC), ECF No. 40, at pp. 1-2 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 19, 2020) (finding it insufficient for a plaintiff who previously consented to magistrate judge jurisdiction to withdraw consent by filing a consent form and instead requiring the plaintiff file a motion to withdraw consent). Any motion to withdraw consent shall be a duly noticed motion governed by the procedures for motion practice as set forth in Civil Local Rule 7-2. And such motion, if filed, will be reassigned to the general duty judge for decision for disposition when ripe. See Branch v. Umphenour, 936 F.3d 994, 1003 (9th Cir. 2019) (“[O]nly a district judge may rule on a motion to withdraw consent to the jurisdiction of a magistrate judge under section 636(c)(4).”)
Plaintiff originally filed the Complaint in this action as Thomas Etienne Rothschild. ECF No. 1. On November 13, 2023, he filed a Notice of Change of Address as Mayer Amschel Rothschild. ECF No. 16. Mr. Rothschild did not submit any proof of a name change to the Court. However, he filed a similar Notice of Change of Address in the related case before the Court, Rothschild v. The Pacific Companies, Case No. 23-cv-01721-LJC, ECF No. 27 (Nov. 14, 2023). That Notice of Change of Address attached an Order Changing Name of An Adult from the Superior Court of Arizona in Maricopa County. Id., ECF No. 27-1. The state court order shows that Mr. Rothschild's legal name is now Mayer Amschel Rothschild. The Court hereby takes judicial notice of that state court order in this action. See U.S. ex rel. Robinson Rancheria Citizens Council v. Borneo, Inc., 971 F.2d 244, 248 (9th Cir. 1992) (noting that a court can take judicial notice of proceedings and filings “in other courts, both within and without the federal judicial system, if those proceedings have a direct relation to matters at issue”) (citation omitted).
IT IS SO ORDERED.