Isabel Romero v. Capital One National Association, et al.

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 4 ISABEL ROMERO, Case No. 25-cv-08842-TSH 5 Plaintiff, ORDER RE: CONSENT TO 6 v. MAGISTRATE JUDGE JURISDICTION 7 CAPITAL ONE NATIONAL 3 ASSOCIATION, et al., Re: Dkt. No. 18 Defendants.

10 On November 3, 2025, Plaintiff Isabel Romero filed a consent to magistrate judge 11 jurisdiction. ECF No.11. However, on January 9, 2026, Plaintiff filed a declination to proceed || before a magistrate judge and request for reassignment to a district judge. ECF No. 18.

13 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1) requires the consent of all parties for “jurisdiction to vest in the v 14 || magistrate judge.” Williams v. King, 875 F.3d 500, 503-04 (9th Cir. 2017). “There is no absolute O || right, in a civil case, to withdraw consent to trial and other proceedings before a magistrate judge.”

A 16 Dixon vy. Yist, 990 F.2d 478, 480 (9th Cir. 2003) (citations omitted). After consenting to the || jurisdiction of a magistrate judge, a party’s consent may only be withdrawn by a district judge for Z, 18 || “good cause shown on its own motion, or under extraordinary circumstances shown by any party.”

19 || Branch vy. Umphenour, 936 F.3d 994, 1001-02 (9th Cir. 2019) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(4)); see || also Fed. R. Civ. P. 73(b)(3) (“On its own for good cause--or when a party shows extraordinary 21 circumstances--the district judge may vacate a referral to a magistrate judge under this rule.”).

22 Thus, if Plaintiff seeks to withdraw the November 3, 2025 consent, Plaintiff must file a motion to || withdraw consent by January 23, 2026. The Court will refer any such motion to withdraw consent || to the general duty judge for resolution.

25 IT IS SO ORDERED.

26 Dated: January 9, 2026 THOMAS S. HIXSON 28 United States Magistrate Judge