Torfason v. California Forensic Medical Group
- Jeffrey White
- 4:22-cv-03458
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Torfason v. California Forensic Medical Group, Judge White ordered a third service attempt on Wellpath and warned the case could be dismissed if service fails.
Plaintiff James Paul Andrew Torfason and Defendant Wellpath Community Care, LLC; the order also directs actions by the Clerk and the United States Marshal.
What happened
In Torfason v. California Forensic Medical Group, the court addressed attempts to serve Defendant Wellpath Community Care, LLC. Earlier attempts at two addresses provided by James Paul Andrew Torfason were unsuccessful.
The court ordered the Clerk to issue a summons and the United States Marshal to serve Wellpath at a newly identified California address, without requiring advance payment of fees. Wellpath must answer under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Judge Jeffrey White also set deadlines for a possible dispositive motion and related briefing, allowed discovery, and reminded Torfason that he must prosecute the case and keep the court informed of address changes. The court warned that the case will be dismissed under Rule 4(m) for lack of service if this attempt fails, unless Torfason shows cause.
The detailed version
- Torfason v. California Forensic Medical Group · No. 4:22-cv-03458
- Jeffrey White
- June 20, 2024
Background
The Clerk had issued a summons, but the United States Marshal was unable to serve Defendant Wellpath Community Care, LLC, at a San Diego address provided by Plaintiff James Paul Andrew Torfason. A second attempt at an address in Nashville, Tennessee, also failed. The court stated that a new address for Wellpath had come to its attention.
Order
The court ordered a third service attempt at Wellpath’s address at 1084 Corporate Creations Network Inc., 4640 Admiralty Way, 5th Floor, Marina Del Rey, California 90292. The Clerk must issue a summons, and the Marshal must serve the summons, the amended complaint and its attachments, the order allowing the amended complaint, and this order. Service is to occur without prepayment of fees.
Wellpath must file an answer under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. No later than 91 days after the order is filed, Wellpath must file a motion for summary judgment or another dispositive motion, or tell the court before that deadline if it believes the case cannot be resolved by summary judgment. Torfason may oppose the motion within 28 days after service, and Wellpath may reply within 14 days after service of the opposition. No hearing will be held unless the court later orders one. Wellpath must also provide proof that it served Torfason with the required warning about responding to a summary-judgment motion; otherwise, the court stated that the motion will be summarily dismissed.
Other requirements and possible dismissal
The court allowed discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure without requiring another order before the parties conduct discovery. Torfason must serve communications to the court on Wellpath or its counsel once counsel is designated. He must also prosecute the case, keep the court informed of any address change, and comply with court orders on time. The court warned that failure to do so may result in dismissal for failure to prosecute under Rule 41(b).
If service on Wellpath cannot be completed at the new address, the court stated that the case will be dismissed under Rule 4(m) for lack of service unless Torfason shows cause why it should not be dismissed. The order did not decide the underlying claims.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.