civil-litigation federal-courts court-watch

Court reminds parties to consent or refuse magistrate jurisdiction in Song v. Greenfield Greenery

25-cv-11917 C.D. Cal.
Active Active litigation Sign in to follow this case
Share mail
Advertisement
description

Case Summary

Song v. Greenfield Greenery, LLC et al is a civil case in the Central District of California, docket number 25-cv-11917. The court has issued a reminder for parties to submit their consent or refusal regarding magistrate judge jurisdiction. The case is currently pending.

No timeline activity recorded yet. This page will grow as rulings and filings land.

Key Issues

  • Magistrate Judge Jurisdiction
  • Consent to Jurisdiction
smart_toy Juryvine case summary generated from primary court records. How we verify our work.
fact_check

Docket Snapshot

account_balance

Court

C.D. Cal.

Central District of California · 9th Circuit · CA

tag

Docket

Not captured

Civil

timeline

Stage

Active litigation

Active

event

Filed

Date unavailable

Not in the available feed

new_releases

Latest Filing

2:25-cv-11917 Ahmad Umar Bashir v. MoneyLion, Inc. et al

Other · Apr 23, 2026

newspaper

Coverage

2 articles

2 sources tracked

groups

Participants

2 Defendants, 1 Plaintiff

3 linked entities

gavel

Judge

Not assigned in feed

What the record shows

This case is tied to Central District of California, a federal district court in CA.

The newest docket activity we have is a other dated April 23, 2026.

The visible party/entity graph currently includes Greenfield Greenery, LLC, MoneyLion Inc, Ahmad Umar Bashir.

Press monitoring has found 2 related articles from 2 distinct sources.

chronic

The Story So Far

Updated 5 days, 9 hours ago

Song v. Greenfield Greenery, LLC et al is an active civil matter in Central District of California under docket 25-cv-11917.

The dispute currently identifies 2:25-cv-11917 Ahmad Umar Bashir on one side and Greenfield Greenery, LLC and MoneyLion, Inc on the other. The case is currently organized around Federal jurisdiction and procedural posture, Current docket activity and next procedural step, Claims pleaded in the complaint and early case posture.

The available docket gives enough signal to track the case, but not enough to overstate the merits. This page will become more useful as filings, orders, hearings, and party appearances add detail.

On April 23, 2026, the docket recorded a other: The court granted a voluntary dismissal of a party in the case of Ahmad Umar Bashir v. MoneyLion, Inc. et al, allowing the party to withdraw from the lawsuit without prejudice.

This means the party can rejoin the case at a later time if they choose to do so. On April 22, 2026, the docket recorded a other: The court reminded the parties in Song v. Greenfield Greenery, LLC et al that they must submit their consent or refusal to the magistrate judge's jurisdiction by a certain deadline.

This is a routine procedural step in federal cases. The parties must respond.

The next thing to watch is whether the latest other produces a substantive order, a scheduling change, a settlement signal, or a filing that clarifies the parties' positions.

smart_toy Juryvine case narrative generated from the full docket timeline. How we verify our work.

About This Court

Central District of California (C.D. Cal.) is a federal district court in the 9th Circuit, CA.

Advertisement

Case Timeline

2 events
info
Other April 23, 2026

2:25-cv-11917 Ahmad Umar Bashir v. MoneyLion, Inc. et al

The court granted a voluntary dismissal of a party in the case of Ahmad Umar Bashir v. MoneyLion, Inc. et al, allowing the party to withdraw from the lawsuit without prejudice. This means the party can rejoin the case at a later time if they choose to do so. The dismissal was granted pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1).

info
Other April 22, 2026

3:25-cv-11917 Song v. Greenfield Greenery, LLC et al

The court reminded the parties in Song v. Greenfield Greenery, LLC et al that they must submit their consent or refusal to the magistrate judge's jurisdiction by a certain deadline. This is a routine procedural step in federal cases. The parties must respond to the court's reminder to avoid any potential delays in the case.

Advertisement
newspaper

Press Coverage

2 articles
settings_backup_restore Data provenance expand_more

Sources tracked

2 outlets · 2 articles

Timeline events

2 records on file

Last updated

3 days, 12 hours ago

Juryvine aggregates docket entries from PACER/CourtListener, press coverage, and GDELT signals. Ingestion timestamps do not appear in the What Changed feed — that reflects real court activity only.