Order | Filed: July 29, 2026
| Entered: July 29, 2026
Aleman v. ASM Global at Moscone Center
Labor: Labor/Mgt. Relations | California Northern
Order
ORDER
Defendant SEIU United Service Workers West has not appeared and remains unserved. A motion to dismiss has been filed, which requires the consent of all parties, even non-appearing defendants, before the court can address it. Williams v. King, 875 F.3d 500, 503-05 (9th Cir. 2017). 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 that -- even if defendants have not otherwise generally appeared -- they can consent to magistrate-judge jurisdiction without waiving any defenses, and the court can decide the pending motion. Cf. Williams, 875 F.3d at 503-05.
Another option is that the court can continue the current motion until all defendants have appeared and can consent or decline the magistrate jurisdiction. (If a defendant defaults, there are other options such as severing the defaulting defendant.) 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 response on 8/12/2026 about their preferred process.
The plaintiff's response is due 8/12/2026, the defendant's reply is due 8/19/2026, and the hearing on the motion will be 9/3/2026 at 9:30 AM in San Francisco, Courtroom B, 15th Floor.
(This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (lblc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/29/2026)
Any non-CM/ECF Participants have been served by First Class Mail to the addresses of record listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF)