# Aerofund Holdings, Inc. v. Brown

> District Court, N.D. California · November 17, 2020

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10065861

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, N.D. California
- **Decided:** November 17, 2020
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10065861

## Opinion text

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

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10065861. Public record. Not legal advice.