Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-03501/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-03501-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Other Civil Rights

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LIN WANG, and FEN YING YIN,

 Plaintiffs,

 v.

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN 

FRANCISCO, et al.,

 Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 14-cv-03501-SC

ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE'S

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Plaintiffs Lin Wang and Fen Ying Yin filed this action on 

August 4, 2014, bringing an array of tort claims apparently arising 

out of their allegedly wrongful arrest and detainment (though the 

complaint is far from clear and rather short of details). See ECF 

No. 1 ("Compl."). The case was assigned to Magistrate Judge James. 

On October 31, 2014, Judge James vacated the case management 

conference scheduled for November 6 because there was no indication 

that any defendant had been served. See ECF No. 5. Judge James 

ordered Plaintiffs to file a status report by November 13. 

Plaintiffs never filed anything, and, on November 19, Judge James 

Case 3:14-cv-03501-SC Document 15 Filed 03/06/15 Page 1 of 3
2 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California 

ordered Plaintiffs to show cause why the action should not be 

dismissed for failure to prosecute. See ECF No. 6. Plaintiffs 

filed a declaration in response, explaining that the failure to 

serve Defendants was the result of confusion and staffing changes, 

and that Plaintiffs expected Defendants to acknowledge service 

within a week. See ECF No. 7 ¶¶ 10-15. Seven weeks later, 

Defendants had still not been served. On January 20, 2015, Judge 

James again ordered Plaintiffs to show cause why the action should 

not be dismissed for failure to prosecute and to comply with court 

deadlines. See ECF No. 9. Plaintiffs were ordered to show cause 

by January 27, 2015, but they did not file any response to the 

order. Accordingly, Judge James issued a report and recommendation 

on February 2 recommending that this case be dismissed without 

prejudice. ECF No. 10 ("Magistrate Rpt."). 

Objections to Judge James's report and recommendation were due 

on February 17. On February 17, Plaintiff Lin Wang filed an 

objection to the report. ECF No. 13 ("Pl.'s Obj."). Ms. Wang's 

objection specified that her counsel had been "working to serve 

Defendants through counsel" and was waiting for Defendants to 

acknowledge receipt of service. Pl.'s Obj. ¶ 13. 

It is now more than two weeks after Ms. Wang filed her 

objection. The record still does not indicate that any defendant 

has been served.1

 Seven months have passed since Plaintiffs filed 

this action, and almost four months have passed since Judge James 

first ordered Plaintiffs to show cause. Plaintiffs have had more 

 

1

 Ms. Wang did provide proof of service by mail of her objection 

(see ECF No. 14), but there is no indication that any defendant has 

been served with the complaint and summons. 

Case 3:14-cv-03501-SC Document 15 Filed 03/06/15 Page 2 of 3
3

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

than an adequate opportunity to serve Defendants, but they have 

consistently failed to do so, and they have failed to comply with

court orders. Despite their protestations to the contrary, there 

is no indication of Plaintiffs' efforts to serve Defendants in the 

weeks following their objection. Accordingly, the Court OVERRULES 

Plaintiff Lin Wang's objection to Judge James's report. The Court 

adopts Judge James's report and recommendation. This matter is 

DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Plaintiffs may refile their case if 

and when they are prepared to prosecute it and to abide by court 

orders and deadlines.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 6, 2015

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:14-cv-03501-SC Document 15 Filed 03/06/15 Page 3 of 3