Sarmiento et al v. Marquez et al

Filing 18


Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 DANIELLE SARMIENTO, et al., 9 v. 10 RUBY MARQUEZ, et al., 11 United States District Court Northern District of California Case No. 21-cv-06712-PJH Plaintiffs, 8 ORDER SETTING CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE AND DIRECTING PLAINTIFFS TO SERVE DEFENDANTS Defendants. 12 13 14 15 16 Before the court is the recommendation of Magistrate Judge Cousins to dismiss the above-captioned case for failure to prosecute and failure to serve. See Dkt. 8, 9. The complaint in this case was filed in August 2021. See Dkt. 1. Plaintiffs did not 17 serve the complaint on defendants, nor did plaintiffs respond to any of the court’s 18 communications, including communications about the initial case management 19 conference in December 2021. See Dkt. 8. 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 As a result of plaintiffs’ failure to respond and failure to consent to magistrate judge jurisdiction, Magistrate Judge Cousins issued an order requesting reassignment to a district judge, and further recommending that the case be dismissed without prejudice for failure to serve defendants under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) and failure to prosecute the case. See Dkt. 9 at 2. The order gave parties 14 days to file objections to the recommendation. Id. Shortly after that order issued, plaintiffs’ counsel made a number of filings. In addition to filing a case management statement, plaintiffs’ counsel also filed objections to the previous order, explaining that a “technical, website error prevented plaintiffs’ counsel 1 from receiving court notices.” Dkt. 14 at 2. The court accepts plaintiffs’ counsel’s 2 proffered reason for the delay, and thus declines to dismiss this case either for failure to 3 serve or for failure to prosecute. 4 Plaintiffs further state that they “remain ready to serve defendants as soon as 5 possible.” Dkt. 14 at 4. Indeed, plaintiffs’ counsel filed a proposed summons, which has 6 now been issued. See Dkt. 15, 16. Accordingly, plaintiffs are directed to serve the 7 complaint on defendants no later than January 21, 2022. The court will then conduct a 8 case management conference on March 17, 2022 at 2:00 p.m. See also Dkt. 17. 9 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 Dated: January 7, 2022 /s/ Phyllis J. Hamilton PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON United States District Judge 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?