Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-01741/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-01741-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

UNITED 

STATES 

DISTRICT 

COURT

For the Northern District of California

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

U

For the Northern District of California

NITED 

STATES 

DISTRICT 

COURT

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Northern District of California

San Francisco Division

THOMAS E. SMITH,

Plaintiff,

v.

BRAD HOFFMAN, et al.,

Defendants.

_____________________________________/

No. C 14-01741 LB

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Case 3:14-cv-01741-LB Document 27 Filed 03/09/15 Page 1 of 2
UNITED 

STATES 

DISTRICT 

COURT

For the Northern District of California

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

2

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

action should not be dismissed 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.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 9, 2015 _______________________________

LAUREL BEELER

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:14-cv-01741-LB Document 27 Filed 03/09/15 Page 2 of 2