Aerofund Holdings, Inc. v. Brown ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 SAN JOSE DIVISION 7 8 AEROFUND HOLDINGS, INC., Case No. 20-cv-03747-VKD 9 Plaintiff, ORDER DISCHARGING ORDER TO 10 v. SHOW CAUSE, VACATING INITIAL CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE 11 LISA BASSHAM BROWN, et al., ORDER OF REASSIGNMENT TO 12 Defendants. DISTRICT JUDGE 13 14 On September 4, 2020, the Court granted plaintiff Aerofund Holdings, Inc.’s (“Aerofund”) 15 request to continue the initial case management conference from September 8, 2020 to November 16 17, 2020. Dkt. No. 9. The Court ordered the parties to submit a joint case management statement 17 that complies with all applicable Civil Local Rules and Standing Orders by November 10, 2020. 18 Id. at 2. Defendants have not appeared in this action or consented to magistrate judge jurisdiction. 19 No party filed a case management statement by the November 10 deadline. The Court issued an 20 order to show cause why the action should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. Dkt. No. 16. 21 In its show cause response, Aerofund states that it has reached a settlement agreement with 22 defendants Lisa Bassham Brown, MBROWN Tech Services, MBrown Tech Services, LLC, and 23 Mike Brown, and that those defendants stipulate to entry of judgment. Dkt. No. 18 ¶¶ 4-8; Dkt. 24 No. 20. Aerofund additionally states that it has reached a settlement agreement with defendant 25 LMI Systems LLC which the parties are reducing to writing. Id. ¶ 9. Aerofund’s counsel 26 attributes Aerofund’s failure to file a case management statement or seek relief from pending 27 deadlines to counsel’s “inadvertence.” Id. ¶¶ 4, 10. Based on the representations made in 1 As none of the defendants has appeared in the action or consented to magistrate judge 2 || jurisdiction, the Court has authority to act only on non-dispositive matters in this action. Absent 3 || the consent of all parties, this Court does not have jurisdiction over the action generally and may 4 || not enter judgment against a party. Rather, the action must be referred to a district judge for this 5 || purpose. 28 U.S.C. § 636; Williams v. King, 875 F.3d 500 (9th Cir. 2017). Accordingly, it is 6 || ordered that this case be reassigned to a district judge. All pending motions, including Aerofund’s 7 request for entry of a stipulated judgment, will be decided by the newly assigned judge. All 8 scheduled appearances are hereby vacated and will be reset by the newly assigned judge. 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. 10 Dated: November 17, 2020 11 . 28 □ 2 ‘ VIRGINIA K. DEMARCHI 13 United States Magistrate Judge © 15 16 = 17 Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28