Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Liao v. Ashcroft

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


February 10, 2009

WANXIA LIAO, PLAINTIFF,
v.
JOHN ASHCROFT, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Phyllis J. Hamilton United States District Judge

ORDER RE E-FILING REQUIREMENTS; ORDER RE SERVICE OF SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT

This action was reassigned to the undersigned district judge on February 5, 2009. The court has reviewed the docket, and notes that plaintiff previously requested, and obtained leave, to participate in the court Electronic Case Filing ("ECF") program. It is the practice of the undersigned to permit a pro se plaintiff to participate in the ECF program only if the plaintiff files a declaration stating that he or she has read General Order No. 45 and the Northern District of California's instructions regarding ECF registration and use found on the court's website at http://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov; that he/she understands the requirements of the ECF program, and that he/she agrees to comply with all the rules and orders of the court, subject to termination of his/her participation for failing to comply with said rules and orders. In order to continue as a participant in the ECF program, plaintiff must file a declaration that comports with the above requirements. If no declaration is filed by March 2, 2009, the court will rescind the order allowing plaintiff to participate in the ECF program.

In addition, plaintiff was advised on December 22, 2009, that she had failed to file a proof of service of the summons and complaint on any of the 21 named defendants.*fn1 She was given until January 10, 2009, to file a proof of service or a waiver of service for each defendant who had not filed an appearance as of that date. The court further indicated that after that date, those defendants for whom plaintiff had not filed a proof of service or waiver, and who had not appeared, would be dismissed without prejudice, unless plaintiff established good cause why she should be given an extension of time for service, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m). To date, only one defendant (CNN) has appeared, and plaintiff has failed to file a proof of service of the summons and complaint, in accordance with the service requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4 (which also incorporates state rules of service), on the remaining defendants. Nor has plaintiff made any showing of good cause for an extension of time for service. No later than March 2, 2009, plaintiff must file either a proof of service showing proper service, or, where applicable, a waiver of service, for each defendant other than defendant CNN. Failure to comply with this requirement will result in dismissal of any defendant for whom plaintiff has not filed a proof of service or completed waiver of service.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.