Ever since Stern v. Marshall, bankruptcy lawyers are frequently asked to consent to entry of final orders by the Bankruptcy Court. I routinely agree to consent because the Bankruptcy Court is a familiar forum and the judges are a known quantity. Occasionally I will say no for strategic reasons. While we deal with these issues on a routine basis, the Fifth Circuit has reminded us that waiving a right to trial before an Article III Judge is a big deal.
A new Fifth Circuit case dealing with consent to trial by a Magistrate Judge might be useful if parties find that they have improvidently consented to entry of final orders by the Bankruptcy Court. In Case No. 24-30552, IFG Port Holdings, LLC v. Lake Charles Harbor & Terminal District, a losing party got a do-ever when it turned out that the Magistrate Judge failed to disclose her close relationship with opposing counsel. While this is not a bankruptcy case, it could be useful to bankruptcy litigants.
