Dupree v. Apple, Inc et al
Filing
16
Order Continuing Case Management Conference and Order Requesting Clerk's Office and U.S. Marshal to Effectuate Service. Signed by Judge Lucy Koh on 03/17/2016. (lhklc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/17/2016)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
SAN JOSE DIVISION
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
ANDREW R. DUPREE,
12
13
Case No. 16-CV-00289-LHK
Plaintiff,
ORDER CONTINUING CASE
MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE AND
ORDER REQUESTING CLERK’S
OFFICE AND U.S. MARSHAL TO
EFFECTUATE SERVICE
v.
14
APPLE, INC, et al.,
15
Defendants.
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
On January 19, 2016, Plaintiff Andrew Dupree (“Dupree”) brought suit against Defendants
Apple, Inc.; Tim Cook; Brenda Everson; and Suzanne Pierre-Ziles (collectively, “Defendants”).
ECF No. 1. On January 19, 2016, Dupree filed motions for leave to proceed in forma pauperis,
ECF No. 2, and for permission for electronic case filing, ECF No. 4. Also on January 19, 2016,
Dupree filed a proposed summons. ECF No. 3.
On January 22, 2016, U.S. Magistrate Judge Howard Lloyd granted Dupree’s motions for
leave to proceed in forma pauperis and for permission for electronic case filing. ECF No. 7.
However, Judge Lloyd’s January 22, 2016 Order did not instruct the Clerk of the Court to issue a
summons and did not order the U.S. Marshal to serve, without prepayment of fees, a copy of the
complaint, any amendments, scheduling orders, attachments, Plaintiff’s affidavit, and Judge
1
Case No. 16-CV-00289-LHK
ORDER CONTINUING CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE AND ORDER REQUESTING CLERK’S
OFFICE AND U.S. MARSHAL TO EFFECTUATE SERVICE
1
Lloyd’s January 22, 2016 Order upon Defendants. Accordingly, it appears that a summons was
2
not issued, and Defendants have not yet been served.
3
On February 3, 2016, Dupree declined magistrate judge jurisdiction, and on February 8,
4
2016, the instant action was reassigned from Judge Lloyd to the undersigned. ECF No. 10. On
5
February 23, 2016, the following filings, which were sent to the mailing address listed on
6
Dupree’s complaint, were returned as undeliverable: (1) Judge Lloyd’s January 22, 2016 Order;
7
(2) a February 5, 2016 Clerk’s Notice of Impending Reassignment; and (3) the February 8, 2016
8
Order Reassigning this Action to the Undersigned. See ECF Nos. 11, 13 & 14. On March 3,
9
2016, Dupree filed a notice of change of address. ECF No. 15. Accordingly, it appears that
Dupree has not been informed that his motions for in forma pauperis and electronic case filing
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
were granted and that the initial case management conference, which was scheduled via an
12
electronic clerk’s notice, ECF No. 11, is currently set for March 23, 2016, at 2:00 p.m.
13
In light of these circumstances, the Court hereby ORDERS the Clerk of the Court to issue
14
a summons and ORDERS the U.S. Marshal for the Northern District of California to serve,
15
without prepayment of fees, a copy of the complaint, any amendments, scheduling orders,
16
attachments, Plaintiff’s affidavit, Judge Lloyd’s January 22, 2016 Order, and the instant order
17
upon Defendants. The Court also ORDERS the Clerk of the Court to deliver to Dupree, via both
18
postal mail and email: (1) Judge Lloyd’s January 22, 2016 Order; (2) the February 5, 2016
19
Clerk’s Notice of Impending Reassignment; (3) the February 8, 2016 Order Reassigning this
20
Action to the Undersigned; and (4) the Instant Order. Finally, the initial case management
21
conference, currently set for March 23, 2016, at 2:00 p.m., is hereby CONTINUED to April 27,
22
2016, at 2:00 p.m. The parties shall file their joint case management statement by April 20, 2016.
23
IT IS SO ORDERED.
24
Dated: March 17, 2016
25
26
27
28
______________________________________
LUCY H. KOH
United States District Judge
2
Case No. 16-CV-00289-LHK
ORDER CONTINUING CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE AND ORDER REQUESTING CLERK’S
OFFICE AND U.S. MARSHAL TO EFFECTUATE SERVICE
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?