Rothschild
Rothschild v. The Pacific Companies
Opinion
trial_court Opinion
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 MAYER AMSCHEL ROTHSCHILD, Case No. 23-cv-01721-LJC
8 Plaintiff,
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO ADD
9 v. ADDITIONAL DEFENDANT;
DIRECTING UNITED STATES
10 THE PACIFIC COMPANIES, MARHAL TO EFFECTUATE SERVICE 11 Defendant.
12 13 The Court previously issued two orders screening pro se Plaintiff Mayer Amschel 14 Rothschild’s1 complaints pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and provided him with 15 opportunities to fix deficiencies therein. ECF Nos. 16, 23. The current operative complaint in this 16 action is the Third Amended Complaint (TAC) filed on September 29, 2023. ECF No. 25. On 17 November 30, 2023, Mr. Rothschild filed a Motion to Add Additional Defendant. ECF No. 28. 18 Mr. Rothschild has consented to magistrate judge jurisdiction. ECF No. 9. For the reasons 19 detailed below, the Court DENIES the Motion to Add Additional Defendant, but orders the 20 United States Marshal to effectuate service on Defendant The Pacific Companies. 21 I. BACKGROUND 22 …