Summary
The United States District Court for the Northern District of California addresses Plaintiff Iana Rodionova’s attempted withdrawal of consent to magistrate judge jurisdiction. The court explains that withdrawal requires a showing of good cause or extraordinary circumstances and directs Plaintiff to file a motion by August 13, 2025, which will be referred to the general duty judge.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether a party that has consented to magistrate-judge jurisdiction may withdraw that consent as of right.
- What procedure and showing are required for plaintiff to seek withdrawal of her consent to magistrate-judge jurisdiction.
Holdings
- A party has no absolute right to withdraw consent to trial and other proceedings before a magistrate judge after consenting to that jurisdiction.
- After consenting to magistrate-judge jurisdiction, a party may withdraw consent only upon a district judge's finding of good cause shown on the judge's own motion or extraordinary circumstances shown by a party. Plaintiff must file a motion to withdraw consent, which will be referred to the general duty judge.
Key quotations
“There is no absolute right, in a civil case, to withdraw consent to trial and other proceedings before a magistrate judge.” (at 1)
Factual background
Iana Rodionova consented to the jurisdiction of a magistrate judge in this civil action. She later sought to decline magistrate-judge jurisdiction and requested reassignment to a district judge.
Procedural history
Plaintiff filed her consent to magistrate-judge jurisdiction on July 10, 2025. On July 28, 2025, she filed a declination and requested reassignment. The court ordered that any request to withdraw consent be made by motion by August 13, 2025, and stated that the motion would be referred to the general duty judge.