magistrate judge lacked jurisdiction to 14 dismiss case on initial review because unserved defendants had not consented to proceed before 15 magistrate judge
How later courts described this case
- magistrate judge lacked jurisdiction to 14 dismiss case on initial review because unserved defendants had not consented to proceed before 15 magistrate judge
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
1
2
3
4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6 SAN JOSE DIVISION
7
8 MARINO JAIR RODRIGUEZ, et al., Case No. 23-cv-01379-VKD
9 Plaintiffs,
ORDER FOR REASSIGNMENT TO
10 v. DISTRICT JUDGE
11 SANTA CLARA VALLEY Re: Dkt. Nos. 17, 20
TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY, et al.,
12
Defendants.
13
14 The operative complaint in this action is the second amendment complaint (“SAC”). Dkt.
15 No. 14. The SAC asserts seven claims against defendants Santa Clara Valley Transportation
16 Authority (“VTA”), Shaw HR Consulting, Inc. (“Shaw HR”), and 100 unnamed Doe defendants.
17 Id. VTA is the only defendant that has appeared in the action, and it is not clear whether
18 defendant Shaw HR, or any other defendant, has been served.1
19 On June 13, 2023, plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file a third amended complaint
20 (“TAC”). Dkt. No. 17. The proposed TAC asserts the following claims for relief against VTA,
21 Shaw HR, and 100 unnamed Doe defendants: (1) violation of the First Amendment of the U.S.
22 Constitution, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983; (2) violation of Article 1, Section 4 of the California
23 Constitution; (3) religious harassment or coercion in violation of Cal. Gov’t Code § 12940(j)(1);
24 (4) discrimination based on religion in violation of Cal. Gov’t Code § 12940(a); (5) retaliation in
25
26
1 It is unclear from the SAC whether the Doe defendants are specific defendants whose identities
are not yet known to plaintiffs, or whether they are merely placeholders. Generally, naming Doe
27
defendants in a federal action is disfavored, but it is permissible when the identities of the alleged
1 violation of Cal. Gov’t Code § 12940(h); (6) failure to accommodate religious beliefs in violation
2 of Cal. Gov’t Code § 12940(l)(1); (7) failure to prevent discrimination in violation of Cal. Gov’t
3 Code § 12940(k); and (8) intentional infliction of emotional distress. See Dkt. No. 17-3. On June
4 27, 2023, VTA filed an opposition to plaintiffs’ motion for leave to amend on the sole ground that
5 amendment would be futile to the extent the proposed TAC asserts a claim for violation of the free
6 exercise clause of the California Constitution. Dkt. No. 20. Specifically, VTA argues that the
7 TAC’s second claim fails to state a claim for relief because there is no private right of action for
8 violation of Article 1, Section 4 of the California Constitution. See id. at 6-7. Plaintiffs did not
9 file a reply in support of their motion amend. The motion is set for hearing on July 18, 2023. Dkt.
10 No. 18.
11 All named parties, including unserved defendants, must consent to magistrate judge
12 jurisdiction before a magistrate judge may decide a dispositive motion. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1);
13 Williams v. King, 875 F.3d 500, 501-04 (9th Cir. 2017) (magistrate judge lacked jurisdiction to
14 dismiss case on initial review because unserved defendants had not consented to proceed before
15 magistrate judge). “Generally, a motion for leave to amend the pleadings is a nondispositive
16 matter that may be ruled on by a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).” Morgal v.
17 Maricopa County Board of Supervisors, 284 F.R.D. 452, 458 (D. Ariz. 2012). However, “when a
18 magistrate judge denies a party the opportunity to assert a new claim or defense, or when the
19 denial is specifically premised on futility,” many courts regard the denial of lead to amend as
20 dispositive. Id.; JJCO, Inc. v. Isuzu Motors America, Inc., No. 08-cv-00419 SOM/LEK, 2009 WL
21 3818247, at *3 (D. Haw. Nov. 12, 2009) (collecting cases).
22 Not all parties have consented to magistrate judge jurisdiction. Because VTA opposes
23 plaintiffs’ motion for leave to amend with respect to the TAC’s second claim, and because that
24 opposition requires the Court to decide whether such an amendment would be futile, resolution of
25 plaintiffs’ motion will require a decision on a dispositive matter. As the Court lacks jurisdiction to
26 render such a decision, the case must be reassigned to a district judge.
27 Accordingly, the Clerk shall reassign this case to a district judge pursuant to the Court’s
1 IT IS SO ORDERED.
2 || Dated: July 12, 2023
3
. 28
Vnisuuia®, Qu Marche
VIRGINIA K. DEMARCHI
5 United States Magistrate Judge
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
©
15
16
= 17
Z 18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28