(PS) Davis v. CA Public Employee Retirement System ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 WILLIENE D. DAVIS, Case No. 2:20-cv-01543-JAM-JDP 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING REQUEST TO VACATE ORDER 13 V. ECF No. 22 14 CA PUBLIC EMPLOYEE RETIREMENT SYSTEM, et al., 15 Defendant. 16 17 Plaintiff requests that I vacate a previous order denying without prejudice plaintiffs 18 motion for entry of a clerk’s judgment for a sum certain for failure to comply with Rule 55(b) of 19 the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. ECF No. 22. Plaintiff argues that the matter was not 20 referred to a magistrate judge and magistrate judge jurisdiction does not apply. Id. To the 21 contrary, the matter was referred under Local Rule 302(c)(19). The order at issue, ECF No. 21, is 22 within magistrate judge jurisdiction; it is non-dispositive of a claim or defense of any party. See 23 Flam vy. Flam, 788 F.3d 1043, 1046 (9th Cir. 2015). Thus, plaintiff's motion, ECF No. 22, is 24 denied. 25 26 | IT IS SO ORDERED. 27 / 28 | Dated: _ December 8, 2020 Q—— 1 JEREMY D. PETERSON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28