Solobay v. Presidio Trust
- Kandis Westmore
- 4:24-cv-04186
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Solobay v. Presidio Trust, Judge Westmore ordered Michelle Solobay to explain why the FTCA case should not be dismissed for improper service.
Michelle Solobay, who was ordered to explain the failure to serve the United States and prosecute the case; the United States, identified as the proper defendant under the Federal Tort Claims Act.
What happened
In Solobay v. Presidio Trust, Michelle Solobay filed a Federal Tort Claims Act case against the Presidio Trust. The court explained that the United States, not the Presidio Trust, is the proper defendant in such an action, and that Solobay had not served the United States.
The United States appeared only to address the service problem and said it had not been served. Solobay did not respond to that filing, did not file the required case-management statement, and had filed nothing since submitting a certificate claiming service on the Presidio Trust.
Judge Kandis A. Westmore ordered Solobay to show by December 18, 2024, why the case should not be dismissed for failing to serve the proper defendant or prosecute the case. The court also continued the case-management conference to February 11, 2025, and warned that noncompliance could lead to reassignment and a recommendation of dismissal.
The detailed version
- Solobay v. Presidio Trust · No. 4:24-cv-04186
- Kandis Westmore
- Dec. 5, 2024
Background
Michelle Solobay filed this Federal Tort Claims Act action on July 11, 2024, naming the Presidio Trust as the defendant. The court stated that the United States is the only proper defendant in a Federal Tort Claims Act action. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m), Solobay had 90 days to serve the complaint and summons on the defendant, making October 9, 2024, the service deadline unless she requested relief from that deadline.
The United States appeared for the limited purpose of asking to continue a case-management conference because it had not been served. It stated that it had tried to resolve the service issue through a stipulation, but Solobay's counsel did not respond. Solobay also did not respond to the administrative motion, and she did not file the required case-management conference statement. The order states that she had filed nothing since July 2024, when she filed a certificate of purported service on the Presidio Trust.
Order
The court ordered Solobay to show cause—meaning to explain—by December 18, 2024, why the case should not be dismissed for failing to serve the proper defendant by serving the United States. The court warned that failure to comply could result in reassignment to a district judge and a recommendation that the case be dismissed for failure to serve the complaint and/or failure to prosecute.
The court continued the case-management conference from December 10, 2024, to February 11, 2025, at 1:30 p.m. The joint case-management conference statement is due February 4, 2025. The order did not itself dismiss the case.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.