28 U.S.C. § 137 — Division of business among district judges

(a) In General. When a court has more than one judge, the court's own rules and orders decide how cases get divided up. The chief judge must make sure those rules are followed, and assigns the business and cases whenever the rules don't already cover it. If the district judges in a district can't agree on rules for dividing up the business, the judicial council of that circuit steps in and issues the necessary orders. (b) Random Assignment of Rate Court Proceedings. (1) In general. (A) Definition. In this paragraph, "performing rights society" means whatever section 101 of title 17 says it means. (B) Determination of license fee. Except as described in (C) below, if a performing rights society is subject to a consent decree, any request to set a license fee for publicly performing music — made under that consent decree — must go to the district court that has jurisdiction over the consent decree. That court must randomly assign the request to one of its judges, following its usual rules for dividing up business. But the request can't go to: (i) a judge who currently has, or previously had, continuing jurisdiction over that performing rights society's consent decree; or (ii) a judge who, at the time the request is filed, already has another pending case asking for a reasonable license fee. (C) Exception. The rule in (B) doesn't apply when an individual proprietor asks for a reasonable license fee under section 513 of title 17. (2) Rule of construction. Paragraph (1) doesn't change anyone's right — whether a party to the consent decree or to a fee-setting proceeding — to ask a court to interpret any part of the applicable consent decree. That kind of request goes to whichever judge currently holds continuing jurisdiction over the consent decree. If the request comes up during a rate-setting proceeding, the rate proceeding pauses until the interpretation request is decided. But a dispute about whether one licensee is like another licensee is not sent to the judge with continuing jurisdiction — it stays inside the rate proceeding.