Robert Ito Farm, Inc. v. County of Maui

If all existing named parties consent to magistrate judge jurisdiction, the magistrate judge may rule on a motion to intervene even if the prospective intervenor does not consent.  If all existing named parties consent to proceed before a magistrate judge, the magistrate judge may rule on a motion to intervene even if the prospective intervenor does not consent to the magistrate judge’s doing so.  28 USC 636(c)(1) requires consent of the “parties” to substantive rulings by a magistrate judge.  A prospective intervenor that has filed a motion for leave to intervene but not yet been granted leave is not a “party” yet and so its consent is not required.

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (Murguia, J.); November 18, 2016; 2016 WL 6818863

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s