D.J. v. Walnut Creek School District

Background

D.J.’s First Amended Complaint added Amy Espinoza, identified as a current or former employee of the Walnut Creek School District, as a defendant. The court stated that a summons did not appear to have been proposed or issued for Espinoza and that the docket did not show she had been served. The District’s pending motion to dismiss stated that, as far as the District knew, there had been no attempt to serve Espinoza.

Reason for the Order

The court explained that it could not resolve a dispositive motion—such as a motion that could end claims or the case—without consent from all named parties, including parties who had not been served. The court cited 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), which concerns consent to a magistrate judge’s authority to conduct proceedings and decide a case.

Ruling

The court ordered D.J. and the District to file a joint status report by April 4, 2025. The report must state whether Espinoza had been served; if not, when D.J. expected to serve her; and whether the District’s counsel represented or intended to represent Espinoza and, if so, whether counsel would accept service on her behalf.

The court stated that it intended to set a deadline for Espinoza to consent or decline consent under § 636(c) after she was served and appeared. Depending on when that issue was resolved, the court said it might continue the hearing then set for April 15, 2025. The order did not decide the District’s pending motion to dismiss.