Solobay v. Presidio Trust

Background

Michelle Solobay initially filed a complaint against the Presidio Trust asserting one claim under the Federal Tort Claims Act. The court stated that the United States, rather than the Presidio Trust, was the proper defendant for that claim. The filings also created uncertainty about whether a minor was a plaintiff and, if so, which minor was involved. Solobay’s counsel, Dylan Hackett, represented that Solobay was acting as a guardian ad litem, but the caption did not consistently identify a minor as a plaintiff, and Solobay had not obtained an appointment as guardian ad litem.

Repeated Filing and Service Problems

The court described multiple unsuccessful attempts to move the case forward. Solobay filed amended complaints, but the filings continued to contain significant errors. The second amended complaint identified Solobay and N.M.S. as plaintiffs but included placeholders instead of actual facts. The third amended complaint again listed Solobay as the only plaintiff and again identified J.S., rather than N.M.S., as the affected minor.

The court also stated that Solobay did not properly serve the United States or obtain an issued summons by the applicable deadline. Counsel missed deadlines for case-management statements, and the court repeatedly continued the case-management conference and issued orders requiring correction of the problems. The court further noted that filings referred to documents that were not filed, cited a local rule that does not exist, and included N.M.S.’s identifying information, leading the court to direct that certain filings be sealed.

Order to Show Cause

This was the court’s third order to show cause. An order to show cause requires a party or lawyer to explain why the court should not take a specified action. The court ordered Attorney Hackett to explain by July 11, 2025, why the case should not be reassigned to a district judge with a recommendation that it be dismissed for failure to comply with court orders. Hackett must explain how he would ensure that a proper complaint is filed if given another opportunity to file a fourth amended complaint.

The court separately ordered Hackett to explain why he should not be referred to the Standing Committee on Professional Conduct because of the repeated errors identified in the order. The opinion does not state that the case was dismissed, that reassignment occurred, or that a professional-conduct referral was made. It sets a deadline for Hackett’s response and directs him to show cause.