Abittan
Abittan v. Chao
Opinion
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10 ARIEL ABITTAN, Case No. 20-cv-09340-NC 11 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHETHER A NOMINAL v. DEFENDANT MUST CONSENT TO JURISDICTION LILY CHAO, et al., 14 Defendants. 15 and
EIAN LABS, INC.,
17 Nominal Defendant.
19 Pending before the Court are Defendant Temujin Labs Inc. (Delaware)’s motion to dismiss, see ECF 36, and Temujin Labs Inc. (Cayman) and the two individual defendants’ motion to dismiss, see ECF 53. Because the undersigned is a magistrate judge, the Court requires the consent of all parties before it may rule on the Defendants’ motions. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c); see also Williams v. King, 875 F.3d 500 (9th Cir. 2017); Shetty v. America’s Wholesale Lender, 735 Fed. App’x 373 (9th Cir. 2018). However, nominal defendant Eian Labs, Inc. has not consented to magistrate judge jurisdiction. Without Eian Labs’ consent, the Court may be required to…