Court Business

• Publication year: 1998
• Pages: 199

27 Colo.Law. 199 Colorado Lawyer 1998.

1998, December, Pg. 199. Court Business

---

199

Vol. 27, No. 12, Pg. 199

The Colorado Lawyer
December 1998
Vol. 27, No. 12 [Page 199]

From the Courts
Court Business
Court Business

In the United States District Court
For the District of Colorado

In the Matter of Local Rules of Practice
Order Adopting Local Rule 72.6

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2071 and Rule 83(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and after publication and an opportunity for comment, it is now ORDERED that the following new local rule, designated D.C.COLO.LR 72.6, will become effective on February 1, 1999

D.C.COLO.LR 72.6
CONSENT JURISDICTION OF MAGISTRATE JUDGES

1. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(c)(1) and subject to the provisions of this Rule, all full-time magistrate judges in the District of Colorado are specially designated to conduct any or all proceedings in any jury or nonjury civil matter and order the entry of judgment in the case. This rule implementing 28 U.S.C. 636(c) consent jurisdiction in the District of Colorado, does not affect assignments to magistrate judges under other court rules and orders of reference

2. No judge or magistrate judge, court official or court employee may attempt to influence the granting or withholding of consent to the reference of any civil matter to a magistrate judge under this rule. The form of notice of right to consent to disposition by a magistrate judge shall make reference to this prohibition and shall identify the rights being waived.

3. Upon the filing of any civil case, the Clerk shall deliver to the plaintiff(s) written notice of the right of the parties to consent to disposition of the case by a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(c) and the provisions of this rule. The written notice shall be in such form as the district judges shall direct. The Clerk shall also provide copies of such notice to be attached to the summons and thereafter served upon the defendant(s) in the manner provided by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4. A failure to serve a copy of such notice upon any defendant shall not affect the validity of the service of process or personal jurisdiction over the defendant(s).

4. Assignment of cases to district judges and magistrate judges shall be by random selection as provided in D.C.COLO. LR 40.1.

5. Except as provided in paragraph 7 of this rule concerning joinder of additional parties, written consent to proceed before a magistrate judge must be filed not less than five days before the Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b) conference. In cases exempted from scheduling conferences under D.C.COLO.LR 26.1, the parties shall have 40 days from the defendant's filing of the first responsive pleading to file such consent. All Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b) scheduling orders required by D.C.COLO.LR 16.2 shall include a statement whether all parties have consented to proceed before a magistrate judge under this rule. When there is such consent, the magistrate judge entering the Rule 16 scheduling order shall forthwith notify the assigned district judge of the unanimous consent who will then determine whether to enter an order of reference pursuant to 636(c).

6. Upon entry of an order of reference pursuant to 636(c), the civil action will be reassigned to a magistrate judge selected by random draw, excluding the magistrate judge previously assigned.

7. Any party added to the action after reference to a magistrate judge under this rule shall be notified by the Clerk of the right to consent to the exercise of jurisdiction by the magistrate judge pursuant to 636(c). If an added party does not file a consent to proceed before magistrate judge within twenty days from the date of mailing of the notice, the action shall be returned to the assigned district judge for further proceedings.

8. The district judge, for good cause shown on the judge's own initiative, or under extraordinary circumstances shown by a party, may vacate a reference of a civil matter to a magistrate judge under this rule.

9. Upon entry of a judgment in any civil action on consent of the parties under 636(c) authority, the appeal shall be directly to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit in the same manner as an appeal from any other judgment of this court.

DATED this 7th day of October, 1998.

BY THE COURT:
Richard P. Matsch, Chief Judge
John L. Kane, Jr. Judge
Zita L. Weinshienk, Judge
Lewis T. Babcock, Judge
Edward W. Nottingham, Judge
Daniel B. Sparr, Judge
Wiley Y. Daniel, Judge
Walker D. Miller, Judge

Colorado Judicial Department
Chief Justice of the Supreme Court Directives

Notice of Availability

A full set of the Chief Justice Directives may be purchased from the Colorado Judicial Department for $15, which includes copying, handling, and postage costs. Checks should be made payable to Colorado Judicial Department and should be mailed to: Court Services...