D.J.
D.J. v. Walnut Creek School District
Opinion
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 D.J., Case No. 24-cv-02660-LJC
Plaintiff,
ORDER REGARDING SERVICE ON
v. AMY ESPINOZA
WALNUT CREEK SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al., 11 Defendants.
12 Plaintiff D.J.’s First Amended Complaint (FAC, ECF No. 59) adds Amy Espinoza, a current or former employee of Defendant Walnut Creek School District (the District), as a defendant. FAC ¶ 4. Summons does not appear to have been proposed or issued as to Espinoza, and there is no indication in the docket that she has been served. The District asserts in its pending Motion to Dismiss that, as far as the District is aware, “there has been no attempt to serve Ms. Espinoza.” ECF No. 63 at 7 n.1. This Court cannot resolve a dispositive motion like the District’s pending Motion to Dismiss without consent from all named parties, including unserved parties. 28 U.S.C. § 636(c); see generally Williams v. King, 875 F.3d 500 (9th Cir. 2017). D.J. and the District1 are ORDERED to file a…