Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-07361/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-07361-3/pdf.json

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

---

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

 EVEYLN PIERSON, et al.

 Plaintiffs,

 v.

 COUNTY OF ALAMEDA, 

et al. 

 Defendants.

_____________________________/

No. C 06-7361 WDB

ORDER DENYING REQUEST TO

CONTINUE CASE MANAGEMENT

CONFERENCE AND ORDERING

PLAINTIFFS TO SHOW CAUSE WHY

ACTION SHOULD NOT BE

DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO

PROSECUTE

This action was filed on November 30, 2006. On April 10, 2007, counsel for

Plaintiffs filed an Ex Parte Motion for Administrative Relief from Deadlines seeking to

continue the Initial Case Management Conference from May 17, 2007, to July 10, 2007.

This is the second time such a request to continue the initial conference has been made. 

Having reviewed the Motion and the accompanying Declaration filed under seal, and

because Plaintiffs have not yet served any of the Defendants, the Court DENIES the request

to continue the Case Management Conference. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m),

the presumption is that Defendants will be served within 120 days from the filing of the

Complaint. The Court is concerned that the failure timely to serve any of the Defendants will

compromise Defendants' capacity to develop their case. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS

Plaintiffs' counsel, or Plaintiffs themselves, if at any time they become unrepresented, to

Case 3:06-cv-07361-TEH Document 11 Filed 04/12/07 Page 1 of 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

2

appear in person on May 17, 2007, at 4:00 p.m., to explain to the Court why Defendants have

not yet been served. Plaintiffs risk dismissal of their case if they fail to appear or fail

adequately to explain the delay in service. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT Plaintiffs serve a copy of this Order immediately

upon any parties who are served with the Complaint by the hearing date of May 17, 2007.

Any such party has a right to be heard at this hearing. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: April 11, 2007 

WAYNE D. BRAZIL

United States Magistrate Judge

Copies to:

stats, counsel for plaintiffs, 

WDB.

Case 3:06-cv-07361-TEH Document 11 Filed 04/12/07 Page 2 of 2