Shokri Varniab et al v. Edlow et al

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
United States District Court
Northern District of California
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
ZAHRA SHOKRI VARNIAB, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
JOSEPH B. EDLOW, et al.,
Defendants.
Case No. 25-cv-10602-SVK
ORDER REGARDING DEFENDANTS'
CONSENT OR DECLINATION TO
MAGISTRATE JUDGE JURISDICTION
The Court requires clarification of Defendant Hannah Lam’s and Defendant Carrie M.
Selby’s consents to magistrate judge jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1) authorizes a magistrate
judge, “[u]pon the consent of the parties,” to “conduct any or all proceedings in a jury or nonjury
civil matter and order the entry of judgment in the case, when specially designated to exercise
such jurisdiction by the district court or courts he serves.”
All Parties named in the original Complaint and the First Amended Complaint in this
action have consented to magistrate judge jurisdiction. See Dkt. 6 (Plaintiffs’ consent); Dkt. 16
(original Defendants’ consent)).
After the Court issued a preliminary injunction, Plaintiffs filed a Second Amended
Complaint (“SAC”) on March 30, 2026. Dkt. 49. The SAC added new defendants: Hannah Lam,
Carrie M. Selby, and Jane Does 1-10. Dkt. 49. The new Defendants (Lam, Selby, and the Doe
Defendants) are sued in both their official and personal capacities. Id. ¶¶ 6-8. On April 7, 2026,
counsel for Defendants filed a document stating:
Defendants Hannah Lam, in her official1 capacity as Field Office Director of San Jose
Field Office, and Carrie M. Selby, in her official capacity as the Acting Associate Director
of Service Center Operations, hereby voluntarily consent to have a United States
Case 5:25-cv-10602-SVK Document 61 Filed 04/29/26 Page 1 of 2

2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
United States District Court
Northern District of California
Magistrate Judge conduct any and all further proceedings in the case, including trial, and
order the entry of a final judgment.
Dkt. 55. The footnote states that “[u]ndersigned counsel does not represent Defendants Lam or
Selby in their individual capacities.” Id.
The consents of Defendants Lam and Selby to magistrate judge jurisdiction are ambiguous.
While the statement regarding “all further proceedings in the case” is sweeping, the reference to
“official capacity” appears to be limiting. 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1) requires “the consent of the
parties” and does not allow for consent of a party only in a particular capacity. Accordingly, the
qualified consent filed on behalf of Defendants Lam and Selby at Dkt. 55, by which those
Defendants purport to consent to a magistrate judge only in their “official capacities,” does not
suffice.
In light of the foregoing, the Court ORDERS as follows:
1. Defendants Lam and Selby shall have until May 6, 2026 to file either an unconditional
consent to magistrate judge jurisdiction or a declination of magistrate judge
jurisdiction. If they do not file an unconditional consent to magistrate judge
jurisdiction by the deadline, the Court will order this case reassigned to a District
Judge.
2. Any party is free to withhold consent to proceed before a magistrate judge without
adverse substantive consequences.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: April 29, 2026
SUSAN VAN KEULEN
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 5:25-cv-10602-SVK Document 61 Filed 04/29/26 Page 2 of 2