Castaneda v. The City and County of San Francisco, California

N.D. California

Castaneda v. The City and County of San Francisco, California

DecidedSeptember 12, 2025

Docket3:25-cv-05048

StatusUnknown

This text of Castaneda v. The City and County of San Francisco, California (Castaneda v. The City and County of San Francisco, California) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, N.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Castaneda v. The City and County of San Francisco, California, (N.D. Cal. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 San Francisco Division 11 BENJAMIN JOB CASTANEDA, Case No. 25-cv-05048-LB

12 Plaintiff,

13 v. ORDER REASSIGNING CASE; REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 14 THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN TO DISMISS FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA, et al., 15 Re: ECF No. 12 Defendants. 16 17 The plaintiff, who appears to be representing himself fraudulently by impersonating an 18 attorney (Mr. Bryan Castaneda) and has not paid the filing fee, sued the City and County of San 19 Francisco, the State of California, and Building Owners Management Association, alleging 20 harassment in violation of state and federal law.1 Because of the apparent fraud by the plaintiff, 21 the court issued an order (attached) to show cause why the case should not be closed for failure to 22 pay the filing fee or prosecute the case. The court allowed the plaintiff until September 11, 2025, 23 to respond.2 He did not. The case should be dismissed. 24 Because not all parties have appeared in the case and consented to magistrate-judge 25 jurisdiction, the case must be reassigned. 28 U.S.C. 636(c)(1); Williams v. King, 875 F.3d 500, 26 27 1 Compl. – ECF No. 1. Citations refer to material in the Electronic Case File (ECF); pinpoint citations are to the ECF-generated page numbers at the top of documents. ] 503-04 (9th Cir. 2017). The court directs the Clerk of Court to reassign the case to a district judge 2 || and recommends that the newly assigned district judge dismiss the case. Any party must serve and 3 file specific written objections to this recommendation within fourteen days after being served 4 || witha copy. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2); Civil L.R. 72-3. Failure to file a 5 || written objection within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the district court’s order. 6 IT IS SO ORDERED AND RECOMMENDED. 7 Dated: September 12, 2025 LAE 8 Oe LAUREL BEELER 9 United States Magistrate Judge 10 1] as 12

13 «14

Oo Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 San Francisco Division 11 BENJAMIN JOB CASTANEDA, Case No. 25-cv-05048-LB

12 Plaintiff,

13 v. ORDER REASSIGNING CASE; REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 14 THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN TO DISMISS FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA, et al., 15 Re: ECF No. 12 Defendants. 16 17 The plaintiff, who appears to be representing himself fraudulently by impersonating an 18 attorney (Mr. Bryan Castaneda) and has not paid the filing fee, sued the City and County of San 19 Francisco, the State of California, and Building Owners Management Association, alleging 20 harassment in violation of state and federal law.1 Because of the apparent fraud by the plaintiff, 21 the court issued an order (attached) to show cause why the case should not be closed for failure to 22 pay the filing fee or prosecute the case. The court allowed the plaintiff until September 11, 2025, 23 to respond.2 He did not. The case should be dismissed. 24 Because not all parties have appeared in the case and consented to magistrate-judge 25 jurisdiction, the case must be reassigned. 28 U.S.C. 636(c)(1); Williams v. King, 875 F.3d 500, 26 27 1 Compl. – ECF No. 1. Citations refer to material in the Electronic Case File (ECF); pinpoint citations are to the ECF-generated page numbers at the top of documents. ] 503-04 (9th Cir. 2017). The court directs the Clerk of Court to reassign the case to a district judge 2 || and recommends that the newly assigned district judge dismiss the case. Any party must serve and 3 file specific written objections to this recommendation within fourteen days after being served 4 || witha copy. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2); Civil L.R. 72-3. Failure to file a 5 || written objection within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the district court’s order. 6 IT IS SO ORDERED AND RECOMMENDED. 7 Dated: September 12, 2025 LAE 8 Oe LAUREL BEELER 9 United States Magistrate Judge 10 1] as 12

13 «14

Oo Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Castaneda v. The City and County of San Francisco, California, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/castaneda-v-the-city-and-county-of-san-francisco-california-cand-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack