Opt-out system for magistrate judge assignments to start in Central District

U.S. magistrate judges in the Central District of California who've been on the bench for more than a year will soon be among the first in the nation to be randomly assigned cases to supervise from start to finish, without needing to hand them off to a district judge.

Departing from a longtime practice of allowing attorneys to opt in to have a magistrate judge hear their cases, they will now have to opt out if their case has been randomly assigned to a magistrate. The changed local rule goes into effect Dec. 1.

Only two other district courts in the nation, the Eastern and Western Districts of Washington, have such a system now, but the Idaho, Montana and Nevada districts plan to adopt it by the end of 2025, according to Chief Magistrate Judge Karen L. Stevenson of the Central District.

"It is a service that helps relieve congestion at the district court level. It's also a benefit to the bar community because it gives them a path to speedy resolution of their cases," she said. "The caseloads at the court are going up. Hearings are up. Criminal appearances are up."

The Central District court, which serves more than 19 million people in seven counties, is the largest in the nation.

Stevenson and 18 other magistrate judges will begin receiving direct civil assignments in December on a basis of 10 cases per month.

Attorneys can opt out without the assigned magistrate judge knowing, Stevenson explained.

"There will be no repercussions for them exercising their right to say, 'Nope. I want to keep a district judge,'" Stevenson said. "It's not going to be filed. It will be sent back to the court to a particular designated email box that's only accessible to the clerk's office. The judges will not be seeing this."

Matthew D. Umhofer, a partner at Umhofer Mitchell & King LLP, said the modification would allow him and his clients to move cases more efficiently because the entire judicial roster will be immediately utilized.

"You can often get a case moving faster with a magistrate judge involved than with an overburdened district judge. So, you get a great judge who may have more time and availability to move your case along," Umhofer said. "The rule excepts death penalty cases and class actions, but beyond that, I can't think of a case that I wouldn't want before a highly qualified magistrate judge. The roster of magistrate judges in this district is really impressive, and they already handle so much in terms of discovery battles, so it can be very helpful to have that judge see a case all the way through trial or settlement."

Magistrate judges also won't be assigned cases in which immediate injunctive relief or a preliminary injunction is sought, Stevenson said.

Attorneys will have 14 calendar days from the date of service to review the magistrate judge assignment and decide if they would like to have their case tried before a district judge instead. Pro se litigants will have a deadline of 21 calendar days.

The changes were implemented through modifications to Local Rules 83 and 73 after the Central District judges unanimously approved, Stevenson said. "And I would say, particularly, it was the vision of our former chief district judge, Phillip S. Gutierrez, and the absolute support of our current chief district judge, Dolly M. Gee, that really moved this initiative forward."

The legal rationale for the system was established in a 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decision in the Western District of Washington case last year. The panel found magistrate judges have the authority to exercise the full civil jurisdiction of Article III district judges established by the Constitution. Washington v. Kijakazi, 22-35320 (9th Cir. 2023).

Although magistrate judges in the Northern District of California, under Title 28 U.S.C. Section 636, have been authorized to be included in the case assignment wheel with the district judges, that court has not set up an opt-out procedure, Stevenson said.

Attorneys who practice in the Central District said the direct assignment modification will open the court like never before and allow its roster of magistrate judges to more fully utilize their law skills, experience and knowledge.

"There are a number of wonderful magistrate judges in the Central District, and they're underutilized hearing mostly discovery disputes. Meanwhile the Article III judges are drowning in cases," Jennifer L. Keller, a partner at Keller/Anderle LLP, said. "If the magistrate judge is handling the entire case, you don't have the delay associated with having discovery disputes being first heard by the magistrate judge, and then waiting to see if the district court will confirm the magistrate judge's decision."

Waymaker LLP partner Ryan G. Baker said the modification would not only allow more hearing availability, but the faster pace could save costs. "Generally, a better allocation of court resources (in this case magistrates) should increase court efficiency, which will benefit most litigants. To the extent the new program stands to improve the equal distribution of work, it will improve efficiency and should reduce litigation costs all around."

Wendy E. Musell, an Oakland based attorney who also practices in the Central District courts, said the modification is a step in the right direction that benefits lawyers because it allows for more individualized evaluation of the jurist who could potentially be handling the case.

"I think it's a really excellent idea in order to make sure that overburdened federal courts can actually process their docket," Musell said. "For me, it's about what I know about the magistrate judge's reputation. I do employment and civil rights cases, so their experience in those cases and how they tend to rule is important to know. ... So really, we're evaluating the expertise and experience that we'll have for that particular case versus who else we may get in the wheel, if we're randomly assigned."

Stevenson said the Federal Bar Association was helpful in sharing ideas for how the Central District's magistrate judges could be more efficiently utilized.

Jeffrey A. Koncius, a partner at Kiesel Law LLP, is president of the Federal Bar Assocation's Los Angeles chapter. "The chapter was very much behind any change that would help people get exposure to the magistrate judges. We're very happy that we were able to help in that regard because we think this is a very positive development for the district," Koncius said.