D.J. v. Walnut Creek School District et al

Filing 29

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY DEFAULT SHOULD NOT BE ENTERED AS TO DEFENDANT SPECTRUM; ORDER TO FILE CONSENT OR DECLINATION. Signed by Judge Lisa J. Cisneros on 11/22/2024. Show Cause Response due by 12/2/2024. Consent/Declination due by 12/3/2024.(bns, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/22/2024)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
D.J.,

7

Case No. 24-cv-02660-LJC
Plaintiff,

8
v.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

9
10

WALNUT CREEK SCHOOL DISTRICT,
et al.,

11

Defendants.

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY
DEFAULT SHOULD NOT BE
ENTERED AS TO DEFENDANT
SPECTRUM
ORDER TO FILE CONSENT OR
DECLINATION

12
13

On October 16, 2024, the parties to this case filed a joint status report indicating that

14

Defendant Spectrum “has been served with the Complaint, has a responsive pleading deadline of

15

November 4, 2024, and is represented in this matter” by an attorney whose electronic signature

16

appears on the status report, Craig Tomlins. ECF No. 27.1 That deadline has passed, Spectrum

17

has not filed a responsive pleading or motion, and Tomlins has not appeared in the case on its

18

behalf.

19

Spectrum is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE why its default should not be entered, by

20

filing a responsive pleading or motion no later than December 2, 2024. If Spectrum files a

21

response by that deadline, this Order to Show Cause will be discharged, and default will not be

22

entered. Spectrum may alternatively file by the same deadline a stipulation to extend time to

23

respond to the Complaint, which under Civil Local Rule 6-1(a) would not require Court action. If

24

Spectrum cannot obtain a stipulation and believes there is good cause to extend time, it may file an

25
26
27
28

1

The joint status report did not include the attestation of consent to filing required by Civil Local
Rule 5-1(i)(3). The Court nevertheless accepts the implicit representation by Plaintiff’s counsel
(whose ECF account was used to file the document) that Tomlin consented to filing and to the use
of his signature. The parties are reminded to comply with the attestation requirement for future
joint filings.

1

administrative motion to extend time no later than November 26, 2024, to allow time for the Court

2

to consider the motion before the December 3, 2024 deadline.
Defendant Walnut Creek School District has filed a Motion to Dismiss. ECF No. 28. The

United States District Court
Northern District of California

3
4

undersigned magistrate judge cannot resolve that Motion without consent of all parties. Since

5

Spectrum has not yet appeared, it has not yet filed its consent or declination to the jurisdiction of a

6

magistrate judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). Spectrum is ORDERED to file its consent or

7

declination no later than December 3, 2024. A form to indicate consent or declination is available

8

at https://www.cand.uscourts.gov/forms/civil-forms/.

9

If not all parties have consented to the jurisdiction of a magistrate judge by that deadline,

10

this case will be reassigned to a United States district judge for all further proceedings, including

11

resolution of Walnut Creek School District’s Motion to Dismiss. Any party is free to decline to

12

consent to the jurisdiction of a magistrate judge without substantive consequences.
Walnut Creek School District is ORDERED to serve a copy of this Order on Tomlin2 by

13
14

any means reasonably calculated to provide actual notice, and to file proof of such service no later

15

than November 25, 2025.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

16
17

Dated: November 22, 2024

18
19
LISA J. CISNEROS
United States Magistrate Judge

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2

If Walnut Creek School District has reason to believe that Tomlin no longer represents
Spectrum, it shall instead serve Spectrum or its new counsel, if any, and include a declaration with
its proof of service explaining the basis for doing so.
2