Prosperity Funding, Inc. v. IDC Technologies, Inc ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 SAN JOSE DIVISION 7 8 PROSPERITY FUNDING, INC., Case No. 20-cv-03679-VKD 9 Plaintiff, ORDER OF REASSIGNMENT TO 10 v. DISTRICT JUDGE 11 IDC TECHNOLOGIES, INC, et al., Defendants. 12 13 14 Plaintiff Prosperity Funding, Inc. (“PFI”) sues defendants IDC Technologies, Inc. (“IDC”), 15 Innova Consulting Services (“Innova”), and Vivos Group Inc. (“Vivos”) for various claims arising 16 out of a contractual dispute. Dkt. No. 1. IDC has counter-claimed and cross-claimed against 17 Innova. Dkt. No. 21. Innova and Vivos have not appeared in this action, and the Clerk of the 18 Court has entered default as to both Innova and Vivos. Dkt. Nos. 25, 26, 35. PFI and IDC advise 19 the Court that they intend to seek default judgments against Innova and Vivos. Dkt. No. 37 at 7. 20 The Court held an initial case management conference on September 1, 2020. PFI and 21 IDC appeared; Innova and Vivos did not. 22 All named parties, including unserved defendants, must consent to magistrate judge 23 jurisdiction before a magistrate judge may hear and decide a case. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1); 24 Williams v. King, 875 F.3d 500, 501-04 (9th Cir. 2017) (magistrate judge lacked jurisdiction to 25 dismiss case on initial review because unserved defendants had not consented to proceed before 26 magistrate judge). As it appears that this case will require a decision that disposes of the claims 27 against some or all of the defendants at this time, and because not all parties have consented to 1 Accordingly, the Clerk of the Court shall reassign this case to a district judge pursuant to 2 || the Court’s Assignment Plan. 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 || Dated: September 1, 2020 5 «8 6 VIRGINIA K. DEMARCHI 7 United States Magistrate Judge 8 9 10 11 12 15 16 17 Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28