Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_02-cv-05940/USCOURTS-cand-3_02-cv-05940-2/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

With respect to Pendergast, the SAC substantively differs from the FAC in that

plaintiffs alleged additional wrongful conduct, (see, e.g., SAC ¶¶ 17-25), and alleged that

Pendergast was liable for such conduct as an agent, (see SAC ¶ 7), and as a conspirator,

(see SAC ¶¶ 29).

2

Although plaintiffs never challenged the Clerk’s declination, the Court observes that

such declination was correct because plaintiffs did not provide any evidence, much less

allege, that they served the SAC on Pendergast.

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

HAROLD DUTRA, JR., et al.,

Plaintiff,

 v.

CITY OF HALF MOON BAY, et al.,

Defendants /

No. 02-5940 MMC

ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFFS TO

SHOW CAUSE WHY CLAIMS AGAINST

JAMES PENDERGAST SHOULD NOT

BE DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO

PROSECUTE

Plaintiffs filed their original complaint in the above-titled action on December 26,

2002. On September 4, 2003, plaintiffs served the summons and the First Amended

Complaint (“FAC”) upon defendant James Pendergast (“Pendergast”). Thereafter,

following the Court’s dismissal of the FAC with leave to amend, plaintiffs, on December 1,

2003, filed a Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”).1

 On December 5, 2003, plaintiffs

requested the Clerk of the Court enter Pendergast’s default. The Clerk of the Court, by

notice filed December 8, 2003, declined.2

 On July 26, 2004, plaintiffs, having filed no

Case 3:02-cv-05940-MMC Document 65 Filed 07/25/05 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

3

With respect to Pendergast, the primary substantive difference between the SAC

and TAC is that the latter pleading does not include references to the existence of a

conspiracy among the individual defendants.

2

proof of service of the SAC on Pendergast, filed a Third Amended Complaint (“TAC”), upon

stipulation of the other defendants, who had been served.3

 An additional year from the

filing of the TAC has passed and, as of today’s date, plaintiffs do not appear to have taken

any steps to prosecute their claims against Pendergast.

Accordingly, the Court hereby ORDERS PLAINTIFFS TO SHOW CAUSE, in writing

and no later than August 15, 2005, why their claims against Pendergast should not be

dismissed for failure to prosecute, pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure. If plaintiffs fail to timely respond, the Court will dismiss the claims against

Pendergast pursuant to Rule 41(b).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 25, 2005 /s/ Maxine M. Chesney 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:02-cv-05940-MMC Document 65 Filed 07/25/05 Page 2 of 2