Corrinet v. Burke

16 Citing cases

  1. Mason v. Themarysue, LLC

    3:22-cv-00766-YY (D. Or. Aug. 4, 2022)   Cited 1 times

    A motion to transfer venue under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) does not address the merits of the case, and thus “it is a non-dispositive matter that is within the province of a magistrate judge's authority” under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). Corrinet v. Burke, No. 6:11-cv-06416-TC, 2012 WL 1952658, at *6 (D. Or. Apr. 30, 2012); see alsoCantley v. Radiancy, Inc., 2016 WL 4191889, at *6 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 8, 2016); Pavao v. Unifund CCR Partners, 934 F.Supp.2d 1238, 1241 (S.D. Cal. 2013); Shenker v. Murasky, No. 95 CV 4692 (NG)(RML), 95 CV 4739 (NG)(RML), 1996 WL 650974, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 6, 1996) (“An order issued by a magistrate judge transferring venue under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) is non-dispositive.”); Holmes v. TV-3, Inc., 141 F.R.D. 697, 697 (W.D. La. 1991) (“[a motion to transfer venue] is not one of the motions excepted in 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A), nor is it dispositive of any claim on the merits within the meaning of Rule 72 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure”)

  2. Khan v. Jayco, Inc.

    Civ. 2:20-cv-01741-SU (D. Or. Nov. 6, 2020)

    “‘[B]ecause a motion to transfer venue [pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a)] does not address the merits of the case . . . it is a non-dispositive matter that is within the province of a magistrate judge's authority' under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A).” Fox v. United States Government, Case No. 3:19-cv-00971-YY, 2019 WL 6493925, at *1 n.1 (D. Or. Dec. 3, 2019) (quoting Corrinet v. Burke, No. 6:11-cv-06416-TC, 2012 WL 1952658, at *6 (D. Or. April 30, 2012)). DISCUSSION

  3. Manfre-Lane v. S. Tex. Dental Assocs.

    Case No. 3:20-cv-00247-SB (D. Or. Sep. 22, 2020)

    "'[B]ecause a motion to transfer venue [pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a)] does not address the merits of the case . . . it is a non-dispositive matter that is within the province of a magistrate judge's authority' under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A)." Fox v. U.S. Gov't, No. 3:19-cv-00874-YY, 2019 WL 6493924, at *1 n.1 (D. Or. Dec. 3, 2019) (quoting Corrinet v. Burke, No. 6:11-cv-06416-TC, 2012 WL 1952658, at *6 (D. Or. Apr. 30, 2012)). IT IS SO ORDERED.

  4. Fox v. U.S. Gov't

    Case No. 3:19-cv-00874-YY (D. Or. Dec. 3, 2019)   Cited 1 times

    "[B]ecause a motion to transfer venue [pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a)] does not address the merits of the case . . . it is a non-dispositive matter that is within the province of a magistrate judge's authority" under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). Corrinet v. Burke, No. 6:11-cv-06416-TC, 2012 WL 1952658, at *6 (D. Or. Apr. 30, 2012); Shenker v. Murasky, 1996 WL 650974, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 6, 1996) ("An order issued by a magistrate judge transferring venue under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) is non-dispositive."); Holmes v. TV-3, Inc., 141 F.R.D. 697, 697 (W.D. La. 1991) ("[a motion to transfer venue] is not one of the motions excepted in 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A), nor is it dispositive of any claim on the merits within the meaning of Rule 72 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure"); Cantley v. Radiancy, Inc., 2016 WL 4191889, at *6 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 8, 2016) (same); Pavao v. Unifund CCR Partners, 934 F. Supp. 2d 1238, 1241 (S.D. Cal. 2013)(same). FINDINGS

  5. Bertomeu v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada

    Case No.: 6:18-cv-01587-MK (D. Or. Mar. 1, 2019)

    "[B]ecause a motion to transfer venue [pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) ] does not address the merits of the case ... it is a non-dispositive matter that is within the province of a magistrate judge's authority" under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). Corrinet v. Burke, No. 6:11-cv-06416-TC, 2012 WL 1952658, at *6 (D. Or. Apr. 30, 2012); Shenker v. Murasky, 1996 WL 650974, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 6, 1996) ("An order issued by a magistrate judge transferring venue under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) is non-dispositive."); Holmes v. TV-3, Inc., 141 F.R.D. 697, 697 (W.D. La. 1991) ("[a motion to transfer venue] is not one of the motions excepted in 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A), nor is it dispositive of any claim on the merits within the meaning of Rule 72 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure"); Cantley v. Radiancy, Inc., 2016 WL 4191889, at *6 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 8, 2016)(same); Pavao v. Unifund CCR Partners, 934 F. Supp. 2d 1238, 1241 (S.D. Cal. 2013)(same). Background

  6. Scott v. Jayco, Inc.

    Case No.: 1:18-cv-00861 LJO JLT (E.D. Cal. Nov. 2, 2018)

    "Because an order transferring venue pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) does not address the merits of the case, it is a nondispositive matter that is within the province of a magistrate judge's authority under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). Corrinet v. Burke, 2012 WL 1952658, at *6 (D.Or. Apr. 30, 2012); Shenker v. Murasky, 95 CV 4739(NG)(RML), 1996 WL 650974, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 6, 1996) ("An order issued by a magistrate judge transferring venue under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) is non-dispositive." ); Holmes v. TV-3, Inc., 141 F.R.D. 697, 697 (W.D.La.1991) ("Since [a motion to transfer venue] is not one of the motions excepted in 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A), nor is it dispositive of any claim on the merits within the meaning of Rule 72 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, this ruling is issued under the authority thereof, and in accordance with the standing order of this Court.").

  7. Scott v. Jayco, Inc.

    Case No.: 1:18-cv-00861 LJO JLT (E.D. Cal. Nov. 2, 2018)

    "Because an order transferring venue pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) does not address the merits of the case, it is a nondispositive matter that is within the province of a magistrate judge's authority under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). Corrinet v. Burke, 2012 WL 1952658, at *6 (D.Or. Apr. 30, 2012); Shenker v. Murasky, 95 CV 4739(NG)(RML), 1996 WL 650974, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 6, 1996) ("An order issued by a magistrate judge transferring venue under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) is non-dispositive." ); Holmes v. TV-3, Inc., 141 F.R.D. 697, 697 (W.D.La.1991) ("Since [a motion to transfer venue] is not one of the motions excepted in 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A), nor is it dispositive of any claim on the merits within the meaning of Rule 72 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, this ruling is issued under the authority thereof, and in accordance with the standing order of this Court.").

  8. J. Lilly, LLC. v. Clearspan Fabric Structures, Int'l, Inc.

    Civil No.: 3:18-cv-01104-JE (D. Or. Oct. 2, 2018)

    "[B]ecause a motion to transfer venue [pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a)] does not address the merits of the case . . . it is a non-dispositive matter that is within the province of a magistrate judge's authority" under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). Corrinet v. Burke, No. 6:11-cv-06416-TC, 2012 WL 1952658, at *6 (D. Or. Apr. 30, 2012); Shenker v. Murasky, 1996 WL 650974, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 6, 1996) ("An order issued by a magistrate judge transferring venue under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) is non-dispositive."); Holmes v. TV-3, Inc., 141 F.R.D. 697, 697 (W.D. La. 1991) ("[a motion to transfer venue] is not one of the motions excepted in 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A), nor is it dispositive of any claim on the merits within the meaning of Rule 72 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure"); Cantley v. Radiancy, Inc., 2016 WL 4191889, at *6 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 8, 2016)(same); Pavao v. Unifund CCR Partners, 934 F. Supp. 2d 1238, 1241 (S.D. Cal. 2013)(same). Background

  9. Paxton v. Dish Network, LLC

    Civil No.: 3:17-cv-01944-JE (D. Or. Apr. 24, 2018)   Cited 1 times

    "[B]ecause a motion to transfer venue [ pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a)] does not address the merits of the case . . . it is a non-dispositive matter that is within the province of a magistrate judge's authority" under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). Corrinet v. Burke, No. 6:11-cv-06416-TC, 2012 WL 1952658, at *6 (D. Or. Apr. 30, 2012); Shenker v. Murasky, 1996 WL 650974, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 6, 1996) ("An order issued by a magistrate judge transferring venue under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) is non-dispositive."); Holmes v. TV-3, Inc., 141 F.R.D. 697, 697 (W.D. La. 1991) ("[a motion to transfer venue] is not one of the motions excepted in 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A), nor is it dispositive of any claim on the merits within the meaning of Rule 72 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure"); Cantley v. Radiancy, Inc., 2016 WL 4191889, at *6 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 8, 2016)(same); Pavao v. Unifund CCR Partners, 934 F. Supp. 2d 1238, 1241 (S.D. Cal. 2013)(same). Background

  10. McClane v. City of Walla Walla

    CASE NO. C17-5116 RBL-DWC (W.D. Wash. May. 5, 2017)

    Because an order transferring venue pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) does not address the merits of the case, it is a nondispositive matter that is within the province of a magistrate judge's authority under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). See Pavao v. Unifund CCR Partners, 934 F. Supp. 2d 1238, 1241 (S.D. Cal. 2013); Corrinet v. Burke, 2012 WL 1952658, at *6 (D.Or. Apr. 30, 2012); Shenker v. Murasky, 1996 WL 650974, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 6, 1996) ("An order issued by a magistrate judge transferring venue under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) is non-dispositive."); Holmes v. TV-3, Inc., 141 F.R.D. 697, 697 (W.D. La. 1991) ("Since [a motion to transfer venue] is not one of the motions excepted in 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A), nor is it dispositive of any claim on the merits within the meaning of Rule 72 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, this ruling is issued under the authority thereof, and in accordance with the standing order of this Court."). BACKGROUND