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.

McCarthy v. County of Sacramento

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


July 16, 2010

DESIREE MCCARTHY, AS GUARDIAN AD LITEM FOR T.G., D.G., AND T.H., PLAINTIFFS,
v.
COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, FAYE RUTHERFORD, JANA THOFTNE, BRANDY LOMACK, CHRISTY BOMBACK, MARLENE ALBRIGHT, GEORGE MOSCHSKE, CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA, AND DOE OFFICERS, DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Garland E. Burrell, Jr. United States District Judge

ORDER

Plaintiffs were required to show cause ("OSC")in a writing filed no later than 4:00 p.m. on July 12, 2010, why sanctions should not be imposed against Plaintiffs and/or their counsel under Rule 16(f) because of Plaintiffs' failure to timely file a status report. Plaintiffs were also notified that any defendant not served with process within the 120 day period prescribed in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) ("Rule 4(m) notice") may be dismissed as a defendant unless Plaintiff provided proof of service or showed good cause for the failure to serve defendant(s) within the prescribed period in a filing due June 11, 2010.

Plaintiffs have not responded to the OSC or the Rule 4(m) notice as required. Since the 120 day period to serve defendants under Rule 4(m) has expired, and Plaintiffs have not filed proof of service showing that any defendant has been served, this action is dismissed and shall be closed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20100716

© 1992-2010 VersusLaw Inc.



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.