Known Doe Plaintiffs 1-4 et al v. Bedard et al

Filing 23

ORDER GRANTING 22 Motion to Withdraw Proof of Service as to Debra Bowen; ORDER Discharging Order to Show Cause Why the Proof of Service as to Debra Bowen should not be Stricken 16 , signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 10/9/2013. (Kusamura, W)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

KNOWN DOE PLAINTIFFS 1-4, et al.,

12

Plaintiffs,

13
14

v.
KERN COUNTY, et al.,
Defendants.

15
16

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 1:13-cv-00965 LJO JLT
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO WITHDRAW
PROOF OF SERVICE AS TO DEBRA BOWEN
(Doc. 22)
ORDER DISCHARGIN ORDER TO SHOW
CAUSE WHY THE PROOF OF SERVICE AS TO
DEBRA BOWEN SHOULD NOT BE STRICKEN
(Doc. 16)

17
18

On September 25, 2013, the Court issued an order to Plaintiffs to show cause why the proof of

19

service (Doc. 11), should not be stricken. (Doc. 16) In the alternative, the Court allowed Plaintiffs 14

20

days to withdraw the proof of service. (Doc. 16) The basis for the order was that service occurred on

21

an employee of the County of Kern, rather than on Ms. Bowen via the Attorney General. (Cal. Gov.

22

Code § 955.4 [“Service of summons in all actions on claims against the state shall be made on the

23

Attorney General.”]), an elected officer of the State of California, or that she intended to do so. (Doc.

24

16 at 2)

25

On October 8, 2013, Plaintiffs filed a motion to withdraw the proof of service and set the

26

matter for hearing on October 31, 2013. (Doc. 22) In the meanwhile, Plaintiffs filed a new proof of

27

service. (Doc. 18) Soon thereafter, the Attorney General, counsel for Ms. Bowen, along with

28

Plaintiffs, filed a stipulation seeking to continue the scheduling conference and to allow additional
1

1

time for the state defendants to respond to the complaint.1 (Doc. 19)

2

ORDER

3

Notably, the motion to withdraw sets forth no explanation why Plaintiffs wish to withdraw the

4

proof of service and the Court presumes their rationale is the same as that set forth in the order to show

5

cause. Therefore, good cause appearing, the Court ORDERS:

6
7

1.

The motion to withdraw the proof of service (Doc. 22), is GRANTED. The proof of

service (Doc. 11), is WITHDRAWN;

8

2.

The order to show cause directed to plaintiffs (Doc. 16) is DISCHARGED;

9

3.

The hearing on the motion to withdraw the proof of service is VACATED.

10
11

IT IS SO ORDERED.

12

Dated:

October 9, 2013

/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1

Presumably, therefore, the Attorney General finds no defect in the newly-filed proof of service or waives any defect, if
any exists.

2