Robert Ito Farm, Inc. v. County of Maui
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 20668
9th Cir.2016Background
- In 2014 Maui County voters enacted an ordinance banning genetically engineered crop activities pending study; industrial agriculture plaintiffs sued to enjoin the ordinance in federal court.
- The named parties consented to proceed before a magistrate judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1).
- Two public-interest groups (Shaka and MOM Hui) moved to intervene; the magistrate judge granted Shaka's motion and denied MOM Hui's, finding Shaka would adequately represent MOM Hui.
- After Shaka was allowed to intervene but did not consent to magistrate jurisdiction, the clerk reassigned the case to a district judge. MOM Hui sought review of the magistrate judge's denial.
- The district court held the magistrate judge had jurisdiction to rule on the intervention motion because the named parties had consented, and that any appeal from the magistrate judge's final order would lie to the Ninth Circuit, not the district court. MOM Hui appealed the district court's jurisdictional ruling to the Ninth Circuit.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a magistrate judge needs the consent of a prospective intervenor to rule on a motion to intervene under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1) | MOM Hui: “Parties” in § 636(c) includes prospective intervenors; their consent is required before a magistrate may issue a final order on intervention | County/others: “Parties” means existing named parties; a prospective intervenor is not yet a party and so need not consent for magistrate to rule on intervention | The Ninth Circuit held a prospective intervenor is not a “party” under § 636(c)(1); magistrate judge could decide the motion with the named parties’ consent alone |
Key Cases Cited
- Arakaki v. Cayetano, 324 F.3d 1078 (9th Cir. 2003) (standards for intervention as of right under Rule 24)
- United States v. Lang, 149 F.3d 1044 (9th Cir. 1998) (standard of review noted for legal questions)
- Pacemaker Diagnostic Clinic of Am., Inc. v. Instromedix, Inc., 725 F.2d 537 (9th Cir. 1984) (magistrate acting with consent has same effect as district judge)
- Donnelly v. Glickman, 159 F.3d 405 (9th Cir. 1998) (appealability of magistrate judge final orders)
- Kofoed v. Int’l Bhd. of Elec. Workers, Local 48, 237 F.3d 1001 (9th Cir. 2001) (magistrate lacks authority to enter judgment without full consent of parties)
- United States v. Real Property, 135 F.3d 1312 (9th Cir. 1998) (putative claimant who never became party did not require consent for magistrate jurisdiction)
- New York Chinese TV Programs, Inc. v. U.E. Enterprises, Inc., 996 F.2d 21 (2d Cir. 1993) (holding prospective intervenor’s consent required)
- People Who Care v. Rockford Bd. of Educ., 171 F.3d 1083 (7th Cir. 1999) (holding prospective intervenor is not a party for § 636(c) consent)
- United States ex rel. Eisenstein v. City of New York, 556 U.S. 928 (2009) (prospective intervenor is not a party until allowed to intervene; collateral-order appeals by would-be intervenors explained)