Smith v. Hoffman

Filing 27

ORDER (1) DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE CASE SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE AND (2) CONTINUING THE INITIAL CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE. The court now orders Plaintiff to show cause why this action should not be dismis sed for failure to prosecute. By March 12, 2015, Plaintiff shall explain, in writing, why he has not filed an amended complaint and why he has not either perfected service or requested entry of Defendants' default. In light of this order, the court also continues the case management conference from March 19, 2015 to April 23, 2015 at 11:00 a.m. Case Management Statement due by 4/16/2015. Initial Case Management Conference set for 4/23/2015 11:00 AM in Courtroom C, 15th Floor, San Francisco. Signed by Judge Laurel Beeler on 3/9/2015. (lblc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/9/2015)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

Northern District of California

10

San Francisco Division
THOMAS E. SMITH,

12
For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11

No. C 14-01741 LB
Plaintiff,

v.
13
BRAD HOFFMAN, et al.,
14
15
16

Defendants.
_____________________________________/

ORDER (1) DIRECTING PLAINTIFF
TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE CASE
SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR
FAILURE TO PROSECUTE AND (2)
CONTINUING THE INITIAL CASE
MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

Plaintiff filed this action on April 16, 2014. (Complaint, ECF No. 1.) It was initially

17

assigned to Judge Ryu. Plaintiff purportedly served Defendant Sonoma County Human Services

18

Department/Family Youth and Children’s Services, as well as the six individual Defendants, on

19

August 21, 2014. (Certificates fo Service, ECF No. 10-16.)

20

Defendants have neither appeared nor answered or otherwise responded to the Complaint.

21

Instead, in his September 14, 2014 case management conference statement, Plaintiff explained that

22

“[b]y letter dated September 9, 2014, counsel for County of Sonoma, Terry Sterling of the firm

23

Spaulding, McCullough & Tansil acknowledged receipt of the service documents, but advised that

24

the proper agent for service had not been served as to the County and as to the individual

25

defendants.” (CMC Statement, ECF No. 18 at 2.) Plaintiff also said that Mr. Sterling’s letter “also

26

indicates that the defense counsel requests that Plaintiff agree not to take defaults of any defendants

27

while the parties work out a stipulation regarding the amendment of the complaint such that the all

28

defendants would be in a position to respond to the first amended complaint which, once filed,

1

defense counsel would be in a position to accept service thereof.” (Id. at 2-3.) Plaintiff then

2

requested that the court continue the September 17, 2014 case management conference for 60 days

3

while the parties worked this out. (Id. at 3.)

4

Judge Ryu continued the case management conference to November 5, 2014, presumably to

5

allow the parties to do what they said they were going to do. The action was then reassigned to the

6

undersigned because it is related to another one of the undersigned’s actions. (Order Relating Cases,

7

ECF No. 22.) The court kept the case management conference on for November 5, 2014.

8

(10/1/2014 Clerk’s Notice, ECF No. 23.) Since then, the court has continued the case management

9

conference three more times because the parties appear to have done nothing and never filed any

10

Because of the apparent lack of movement, the court now orders Plaintiff to show cause why this

12
For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11

joint case management conference statements. (See Clerk’s Notices, ECF Nos. 24-26.)

action should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. By March 12, 2015, Plaintiff shall explain,

13

in writing, why he has not filed an amended complaint and why he has not either perfected service

14

or requested entry of Defendants’ default. In light of this order, the court also continues the case

15

management conference from March 19, 2015 to April 23, 2015 at 11:00 a.m.

16
17
18

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 9, 2015
_______________________________
LAUREL BEELER
United States Magistrate Judge

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2