Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-03825/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-03825-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
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

1

 Record citations are to documents in the Electronic Case File (“ECF”); pinpoint citations

are to the ECF-generated page numbers at the top of the documents.

ORDER

C 14-03825 LB

UNITED 

STATES 

DISTRICT 

COURT

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Northern District of California

San Francisco Division

TADEUSZ WYRZYKOWSKI,

Plaintiff,

v.

COUNTY OF MARIN, et al.,

Defendants.

_____________________________________/

No. C 14-03825 LB

ORDER DIRECTING

CLARIFICATION OF

REPRESENTATION

On August 22, 2014, Plaintiff Tadeusz Wyrzykowski, who is proceeding pro se, filed a

complaint and an application to proceed in forma pauperis. (Complaint, ECF No. 1; IFP

Application, ECF No. 3.1

) He brings claims against four Defendants: (1) the County of Marin; (2)

the County of Marin Board of Supervisors; (3) Roy Given; and (4) Liz Clark. (First Amended

Complaint, ECF No. 8.) On January 7, 2015, Deputy County Counsel Sheila Lichtblau filed a

consent declaration on behalf of “Defendants [plural] County of Marin.” (Consent (County of

Marin), ECF No. 18.) The next day, she filed a motion to dismiss on behalf of unspecified

“Defendants” [plural]. (Motion, ECF No. 19.) The request for judicial notice that accompanies the

Case 3:14-cv-03825-LB Document 23 Filed 01/14/15 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

ORDER

C 14-03825 LB

2

UNITED 

STATES 

DISTRICT 

COURT

For the Northern District of California

motion also states that it is on behalf of “Defendants” [plural]. (RJN, ECF No. 20.) However, the

certificate of service for the motion and request states that service was filed on behalf of

“Defendants [plural] County of Marin,” but states that the motion and request that were served were

“Defendant [singular] County of Marin’s” motion and request. (Certificate of Service, ECF No. 22.) 

To clear up this confusion, the court directs Ms. Lichtblau to clarify, in writing and by noon on

January 1, 2015, whether she represents all four Defendants or only the County of Marin and which

Defendant or Defendants move to dismiss the First Amended Complaint.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 14, 2015 _______________________________

LAUREL BEELER

United States Magistrate Judge 

Case 3:14-cv-03825-LB Document 23 Filed 01/14/15 Page 2 of 2