Procedural Confusion During Trial Leads to Remand

A federal circuit court of appeals has remanded a case to be retried after a magistrate judge was involved in non-ministerial tasks relating to the trial. ABA Litigation Section leaders advise attorneys to know the rules of procedure well and to research unusual procedural situations they may be experiencing for the first time.

Parties in Trial Left Hanging as Judge Takes Leave

During a jury trial in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, PB Legacy, Inc. v. American Mariculture, Inc, the judge presiding over the case was scheduled to take a leave of absence. The judge warned that he was putting the parties and their counsel on a deadline and threatened a mistrial should they exceed that deadline. Before the jury was done deliberating, the judge needed to take his leave. The judge met with counsel for both parties and proposed “without objection” that a magistrate judge take his place receiving the verdict from the jury. During deliberations, the magistrate judge handled questions raised by the jury, and upon return of the verdict, the magistrate judge read the verdict. After receiving the verdict, the magistrate judge also rejected a request for clarification of the verdict.

On appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit held that the magistrate judge improperly exercised Article III authority “when he responded to jury questions and rejected a request for clarification about the verdict.” As the court observed, the parties did not expressly consent to have the magistrate judge perform these non-ministerial duties, and this was not one of the “limited circumstances” where consent could be implied. As a result, the court vacated the judgment and remanded the case for a new trial.

Magistrate Judge Authority

Part of the requirement to have a magistrate judge preside over a case is consent by the parties involved to allow the magistrate that authority, explains Hon. Lucy Inman (Ret.), Raleigh, NC, member of the Litigation Section’s Website and Written Content Subcommittee for the Ethics & Professionalism Committee. Magistrate judges’ authority to preside over a civil proceeding is given to them by a federal statute, 28 U.S.C. § 631, which outlines the appointment and tenure of a magistrate judge in district courts, she explains. “If the parties consent, a magistrate judge ‘may conduct any or all proceedings in a jury or nonjury civil matter and order entry of judgment in the case, when specially designated to exercise such jurisdiction by the district court,’” under provision (c)(1) of that statute, offers Deborah J. Challener, Ridgeland, MS, Co-Chair of the Section’s Appellate Practice Programming Subcommittee of the Appellate Practice Committee.

In this case, the district court judge secured counsels’ oral consent to have the magistrate judge receive the jury verdict. Even though jury deliberations are often completed without engagement with the court, aside from the reception of the verdict, “it is impossible to predict in any given case whether the court may be required to fulfill substantive, judicial duties, such as answering jurors’ questions,” observes Inman. Since the magistrate judge in this case responded to six different notes/questions from jurors, he exceeded his authority; therefore, it was right to remand for new trial, she adds.

The court was right to remand, agrees Challener. However, voiding the decision “should not be automatic when a magistrate judge exercises Article III authority without the express or implied consent of the parties”; if such a situation such as this arises, then the “error should be subject to the civil plain error standard if it is raised on appeal,” suggests Challener.

Keeping a Watchful Eye

Counsel need to “pay close attention to the procedural rules,” Inman cautions; to avoid spending extra time and money, the “best way to deal with this is right when the issue arises.” Specific consent, whether written or verbal, given to the original judge, for the magistrate judge to be granted the authority beyond ministerial tasks could have changed the outcome of the Eleventh Circuit’s decision, she explains.

Attorneys practicing in federal court should take the time to research case law in their circuits, Challener warns. A better explanation and understanding of the magistrate judge’s responsibilities with time for objections could have potentially avoided this dispute, she states.