Order | Filed: July 02, 2026
| Entered: July 02, 2026
Conley v. Infinity Insurance Company et al
Insurance | California Northern
Order
ORDER
Remand is a dispositive matter. Flam v. Flam, 788 F.3d 1043, 1047 (9th Cir. 2015). That means that the court can remand the case only if all parties, including the non-appearing defendants, consent to magistrate-judge jurisdiction. The appearing parties have consented, but the non-appearing defendant (Burnham Brown) has not.
A defendant's consent to magistrate-judge jurisdiction does not waive any defenses, including a defense of lack of jurisdiction or improper service (for example). See, e.g., Feng v. County of Santa Clara, No. 19-cv-06877-LB, 2019 WL 7194475, at *1 n.1 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 26, 2019); Harper v. City of Cortez, No. 14-cv-02984-KLM, 2015 WL 4113825, at *3 (D. Colo. July 8, 2015); Geiche v. City and County of San Francisco, No. C 08-3233 JL, 2009 WL 1948830, at *9 (N.D. Cal. July 2, 2009). To hold otherwise would put parties in the unfair position of being unable to consent to a magistrate judge without also having to waive defenses. See Feng, 2019 WL 7194475, at *1 n.1; Miller v. Wholesale Am. Mortg., Inc., No. 17-cv-05495-LB, 2018 WL 306714, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 5, 2018) (parties who want to consent to magistrate-judge jurisdiction should not have their consents unduly frustrated).
This means is that -- even if defendants have not otherwise generally appeared -- they can consent to magistrate-judge jurisdiction, and that consent does not waive any defenses, including any defenses to service that they may have in state court. That would allow the court to remand the case. Cf. Williams, 875 F.3d at 50305.
Another option is that the court can continue the current motion until all defendants have appeared and can consent or decline the magistrate jurisdiction.
A third option is that the case can be reassigned to a district judge, who can decide the motion before other defendants appear. The case can always be reassigned back to the undersigned if all parties consent.
Given the pending motion, the court asks the parties to confer and advise the court as soon as is practicable and at least by the due date of the reply brief on 7/8/2026 about their preferred process.
Signed by Judge Laurel Beeler on 7/2/2026. (This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.)
(lblc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/2/2026)