Order | Filed: August 14, 2026
| Entered: August 14, 2026
Stewart et al v. Utnehmer et al
Real Property: Foreclosure | California Northern
Order
ORDER.
Two separate motions to dismiss have been filed, which require the consent of all parties, even non-appearing defendants, before the court can address them. 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 motions. Cf. Williams, 875 F.3d at 503-05.
Another option is that the court can continue both of the current motions 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 motions before other defendants appear. The case can always be reassigned back to the undersigned if all parties consent.
Given the pending motions, 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 earlier reply brief on 8/27/2026 about their preferred process. If there are any issues with service, the parties might consider conferring in an attempt to resolve them.
(This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (lblc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/14/2026)