Torfason v. California Forensic Medical Group
- Jeffrey White
- 4:22-cv-03458
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In James Paul Andrew Torfason v. Wellpath, Judge White ordered renewed service and denied Torfason’s extension request as unnecessary.
The order affects Torfason, Wellpath, and the remaining defendants by addressing service, case deadlines, discovery, and Torfason’s motion for an extension of time.
What happened
In James Paul Andrew Torfason v. Wellpath, the U.S. Marshals Service could not serve Wellpath at an earlier address provided by Torfason. Torfason provided a new address, so the court ordered another service attempt.
The court directed the Clerk to issue a summons and the Marshal to serve Wellpath, without requiring advance payment of fees, with the amended complaint and specified orders. It also set deadlines for defendants’ answers and later dispositive motions, allowed discovery, and warned that the case could be dismissed if service failed or Torfason did not prosecute it.
The court denied Torfason’s motion for an extension of time as unnecessary. Judge Jeffrey White also explained that Torfason could seek permission to file a second amended complaint if he wanted to identify any “Doe” defendants.
The detailed version
- Torfason v. California Forensic Medical Group · No. 4:22-cv-03458
- Jeffrey White
- Jan. 18, 2024
Background
The Clerk had issued a summons, but the Marshal could not serve Wellpath at a San Diego address supplied by Torfason. Torfason then provided another address in Nashville, Tennessee.
Court’s directives
The court ordered the Clerk to issue a new summons and directed the United States Marshal to serve Wellpath at the new address without prepayment of fees. The Marshal was also to serve the amended complaint, its attachments, the prior order of service, and this order. Wellpath was ordered to file an answer under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
The court set a schedule requiring the remaining defendants, including those ordered served, to file a summary-judgment motion or another dispositive motion no later than 91 days after the order was filed, unless they informed the court that summary judgment could not resolve the case. It set deadlines for Torfason’s opposition and defendants’ reply, and stated that no hearing would be held unless later ordered. Defendants were required to provide proof that they had served Torfason with the warning about the consequences of failing to oppose summary judgment; otherwise, the court would summarily dismiss the motion.
The court permitted discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure without requiring another order before discovery could begin. It also required Torfason to serve copies of his communications with the court on the defendants or their counsel, keep the court informed of address changes, and comply with court orders. Failure to prosecute the case could result in dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). If service could not be completed at the new address, the court stated that the case might be dismissed under Rule 4(m) for lack of service unless Torfason showed cause.
Ruling
The court denied Torfason’s motion for an extension of time as unnecessary. It did not identify a current deadline requiring the requested extension. The court stated that, if Torfason wished to name “Doe” defendants, he could file a motion for leave to file a second amended complaint with a proposed complaint identifying those defendants.
The order was signed by Judge Jeffrey White on January 18, 2024.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.