Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-01741/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-01741-3/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. 3:14-cv-01741 LB

SECOND 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

Thomas Smith filed this action on April 16, 2014. (Complaint, ECF No. 1.) It was initially

assigned to Judge Ryu. Mr. Smith purportedly served the 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.) 

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

Instead, in his September 14, 2014 case-management-conference statement, Mr. Smith 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.) Mr. Smith 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 34 Filed 06/29/15 Page 1 of 4
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.) Mr. Smith 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.) After that, the court 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, on March 9, 2015, this court ordered Mr. Smith to

show cause why the case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. (First OSC, ECF No. 27.)

The court did so because, although the action was filed on April 16, 2014, Mr. Smith still had not

served the defendants with the complaint and summons. 

On March 10, 2015, Mr. Smith’s counsel responded to the order to show cause. (Response to

First OSC, ECF Nos. 28, 29.) He explained that he has been facing some personal difficulties of late

and that his paralegal, who knows much about this action, has been dealing with a medical problem

for the last few months. These things prevented him from drafting, filing, and serving a first

amended complaint. He also said that the defendants’ counsel had no objection to the delay in

service. 

Based on Mr. Smith’s counsel’s representations, the court discharged its order to show cause and

directed him to file and serve a first amended complaint by April 27, 2015. (3/19/2015 Order, ECF

No. 32.) 

On April 13, 2015, the court’s courtroom deputy received an email from Kristen O’Hagan, who

apparently works with Mr. Smith’s counsel. She says that there had been a medical emergency in

Mr. Smith’s counsel’s family and he must travel to the east coast. On Mr. Smith’s counsel’s behalf,

she asked the court to extend the deadline for filing and serving the First Amended Complaint by 30

days. She also asks that the April 23, 2015 case management conference be continued by 30 days as

well. 

Case 3:14-cv-01741-LB Document 34 Filed 06/29/15 Page 2 of 4
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

3

The court granted the request. (4/16/2015 Order, ECF No. 33.) The court ordered Mr. Smith

shall file and serve the First Amended Complaint by June 1, 2015 and continued the April 23, 2015

case management conference to July 2, 2015.

It now is June 29, 2015, and neither a First Amended Complaint nor a case management

conference statement has been filed. By July 2, 2015, Mr. Smith shall explain, in writing, why he did

not file a First Amended Complaint by the court’s June 1, 2015 deadline and why this action should

not be dismissed for his failure to prosecute it. In light of this order, the court also continues the case

management conference from July 2, 2015 to September 10, 2015 at 11:00 a.m.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 29, 2015 _______________________________

LAUREL BEELER

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:14-cv-01741-LB Document 34 Filed 06/29/15 Page 3 of 4
Case 3:14-cv-01741-LB Document 34 Filed 06/29/15 Page 4 of 4