Order | Filed: August 21, 2026
| Entered: August 21, 2026
Jani-King of Hartford, Inc. v. Melluzzo et al
Contract: Franchise | Connecticut
Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief
ORDER referring ECF No. 140 , Motion to Withdraw, to United States Magistrate Judge Robert M. Spector but DENYING 136 , the motion to so refer Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment at ECF No. 121 .
At ECF No. 140, a non-party subpoena witness has filed a motion related to Judge Spector's order at ECF No. 134. Accordingly, the motion hereby is referred to Judge Spector for His Honor's consideration.
Separately, at ECF No. 136, Plaintiff Jani-King has moved for the undersigned to refer another motion to Judge Spector. Namely, the motion for partial summary judgment at ECF No. 121. Opposition to referral was docketed at ECF No. 139, and a reply in further support for such referral was docketed at ECF No. 141. Having reviewed and carefully considered all of the above, the court hereby denies referral of the dispositive motion.
In the interests of docket clarity and judicial economy, the court will note that at some point, it appears that the limited-scope referral order at ECF No. 75 caused the inadvertent electronic referral of certain motions to Judge Spector without any such notation on the docket. The undersigned has been informed of this issue, and that the Clerk's Office has corrected it. The court thanks the Clerk's Office for its diligence and communication. And while review of the docket confirms that this technical error did not result in any motions having been ruled upon by Judge Spector when no such referral was intended, the undersigned will offer some docket clarity here, in the event that the parties or the chambers of Judge Spector might have received electronic notice of any of the aforementioned accidental electronic referrals or corrections not otherwise indicated through the docket.
Two quick examples of the need for such clarity can be found within the docket text of ECF Nos. 122 and 129. At docket entry 122 (Plaintiff's motion to seal just ruled upon by the undersigned), the docket text says, "Motions referred to Robert M. Spector," just before the name of Plaintiff's counsel who seems to have filed that motion. And at docket entry 129 (Defendants' motion in opposition to the aforementioned motion for partial summary judgment), the docket text similarly ends with the phrase, "Motions referred to Robert M. Spector," immediately before the name of the defense lawyer who seems to have filed that motion.
To be clear, the dispositive motions in this case remain under review by the undersigned. See, e.g., ECF Nos. 24, 39, 121, 129. However, given the shared interest in judicial economy expressed by the parties throughout the briefing related to the motion at ECF No. 136, the parties are reminded that they remain free to consent to the jurisdiction of a United States Magistrate Judge who could preside over this case in its entirety, "including presiding over a jury or non-jury trial." See ECF No. 9. Each of the United States Magistrate Judges within the District of Connecticut has expressed a genuine interest in presiding over trials, and one of them recently remarked that they are often able to try civil cases sooner than would a district judge, partly because United States Magistrate Judges do not incur the risk of a felony criminal trial (subject to the provisions of the Speedy Trial Act) delaying the start of a civil trial. Beyond that, their knowledge, experience, and diligent case management can result in the fair and timely resolution of cases long before trial. And "the assigned Magistrate Judge" (in this case, Judge Spector) presides over matters with such consent. See ECF No. 9.
The court thanks the parties for their patience and understanding with respect to the pending motions and regarding all of the referrals clarified above.
It is so ordered.
Signed by Judge Omar A. Williams on 8/21/2026. (KM)