Florence

Florence v. Stanback

Good Law
607 F. Supp. 2d 1119·2009 WL 928487·2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 49702
United States District Court, Central District of CaliforniaMarch 23, 2009CV 07-8184 RSWL (FMO)California1,597 words

Opinion

Opinion

Lew, J.

ORDER Re: MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

The Court has reviewed and considered defendants’ Motion for Reconsideration and concludes that oral argument is not necessary to resolve this motion. See Fed. R.Civ.P. 78; Local Rule 7-15; Willis v. Pac. Mar. Ass’n, 244 F.3d 675 , 684 n. 2 (9th Cir.2001, as amended Mar. 27, 2001).

On June 9, 2008, defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint (“Motion to Dismiss”). On October'6, 2008, the Magistrate Judge denied the Motion to Dismiss without prejudice. (Court’s Order of October 6, 2008, at 13). On February 23, 2009, more than four months after the Magistrate Judge denied defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, defendants filed a Motion for Reconsideration, together with a Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support- of the Motion (“Motion”).

Defendants contend that “the Magistrate Judge lacks jurisdiction to issue a dispositive order deciding Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss.” (Motion at 2) (capitalization and bold omitted). Defendants assert that they “have not consented to a final decision by the Magistrate Judge. Accordingly, the Magistrate Judge is required by 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and (C) to submit to the District…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.