The opinion of the court was delivered by: Gary S. Austin United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER FOLLOWING STATUS CONFERENCE
RELEVANT PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On February 7, 2003, Plaintiffs George A. Boyle, Noralee Boyle, Dean J. Miller, *fn1 Victor VeVea, Alena VeVea, Ramona Guillen, Miriam Ruiz, the Law Offices of George A. Boyle, and Giachino Family Enterprises, filed a Complaint in this Court, asserting eighteen causes of action. Plaintiffs named nine defendants, including the County of Kern, Kern County District Attorney Edward R. Jagels, Stephen Tauzer *fn2 and the Estate of Stephen Tauzer, *fn3 and Victoria Sharp (hereafter the "County Defendants"), as well as the City of Bakersfield, Bakersfield Police Department, Scott Tunnicliffe, and Ralph Wyatt *fn4 (hereafter the "City Defendants"). All Plaintiffs were represented by George A. Boyle. ( See Doc. 1.)
On March 21, 2003, Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint ("FAC"), naming the Kern County District Attorney's Office, Bakersfield City Manager Alan Tandy, and Bakersfield Police Chief Eric Matlock as additional Defendants. ( See Doc. 5.) The City Defendants and the County Defendants filed answers to the FAC on April 10, 2003. ( See Docs. 6 & 8.)
On January 28, 2004, a Stipulation was lodged with the Court requesting that the matter be stayed pending the outcome of related criminal proceedings against one of the Plaintiffs, Victor VeVea ( U.S. v. VeVea , case no. 1:03-cr-05410). On February 3, 2004, District Judge Oliver W. Wanger adopted the parties' stipulation and the instant matter was stayed accordingly. ( See Doc. 50.)
STATUS CONFERENCE PROCEEDINGS
After issuance of an order by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals denying Mr. VeVea's request for a hearing en banc in his criminal appellate proceeding, this Court conducted a telephonic status conference on October 6, 2011. George A. Boyle appeared on behalf of the named Plaintiffs *fn5 ; Andrew Thompson appeared on behalf of the County Defendants; and Michael Lehman and Virginia Gennaro appeared on behalf of the City Defendants. The Court set the matter for a status conference to address, in part, whether the stay of this matter should be lifted in light of the Ninth Circuit's decision. ( See USDC Case No. 1:03-cr-05410-LJO, Doc. 335.) The Court also sought to clarify issues regarding consent to magistrate judge jurisdiction. This Court now turns to address those issues, in addition to an issue regarding legal representation.
The Legal Representation of Named Plaintiffs
At the status conference, Plaintiffs' counsel Mr. Boyle advised the Court that he did not represent named Plaintiffs Victor VeVea or Alena VeVea. Mr. Boyle contends the VeVeas were represented by Dean J. Miller, now deceased. Despite Mr. Boyle's assertion however, a review of this Court's paper file, as well as that maintained on the CM/ECF system, confirms that Mr. Boyle has represented all named Plaintiffs from the time this action commenced on February 7, 2003, through to the present. Mr. Boyle's signature appears on the original complaint and the operative FAC. Moreover, the Court notes he has signed a number of pleadings during the course of this litigation as legal counsel for all Plaintiffs. ( See, e.g. , Docs. 1, 3, 11, 13, 21, 29, 32, 36-37, 57 & 80.) The electronic docket indicates a single attorney representing all Plaintiffs: George A. Boyle.
Mr. Boyle also advised the Court that Victor VeVea was represented
by "Victor Page," who could be contacted at telephone number
"415-986-4558." *fn6 It appears perhaps Mr.
Boyle is confusing Mr. VeVea's representation in the related criminal
matter with his representation in the instant civil matter. To be
clear, at this juncture, the parties are advised that the VeVeas are
in fact represented by Mr. Boyle in the instant civil action, as are
all named Plaintiffs. Mr. Boyle will remain counsel for record for all named Plaintiffs unless he
takes further action to remove himself as counsel of record.
Consent to Magistrate Jurisdiction
Following Chief Judge Anthony W. Ishii's Order Of Reassignment filed September 14, 2011, the parties were provided thirty days within which to complete and file a form, either consenting or declining the jurisdiction of a United States Magistrate Judge. (Doc. 85.)
On September 16, 2011, the County Defendants filed their collective consent to magistrate jurisdiction. (Doc. 86.)
On September 28, 2011, a form was filed by Mr. Boyle, apparently intending to consent to magistrate jurisdiction. Nevertheless, it is not clear from the form whether that consent was intended to be on behalf of all Plaintiffs. The form is incomplete in this regard. Therefore, at the status conference, this Court directed Mr. Boyle to file an amended form, clearly indicating whether or not his signature ...