Order | Filed: August 22, 2026
| Entered: August 22, 2026
Peden et al v. Whitney
Other Fraud | California Northern
Order
ORDER RE CONSENT JURISDICTION
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, 50305 (9th Cir. 2017). Two new parties were added in the amended complaint: Whitney Homes, Inc. (previously only Mark Whitney d/b/a Whitney Homes was named) and Platte River Insurance Co. Technically Mr. Rice should enter his appearance and file a separate consent form for Whitney Homes, Inc. Platte Insurance has answered but has not filed a consent to or declination of magistrate-judge jurisdiction. (Technically, a consent 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). 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 id. , 2019 WL 7194475, at *1 n.1. That seemingly is a non-issue given that Platte River Insurance answered and Mr. Whitney has appeared through his d/b/a, but the court flags the issue for whatever concerns it might alleviate.)
Given the pending motion, it would be good if the parties could consent or decline by August 24, 2026. The form is attached. That should not be a problem for Whitney Homes, Inc., given the previous appearance by the d/b/a. If the timeline is too tight for Platte Insurance Co., it can file something Monday to let the court know and can have until August 31, 2026, to accept or decline. The court can always continue the hearing.
(Beeler, Laurel) (Filed on 8/22/2026)