IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
January 6, 2011
SCOTT N. JOHNSON,
MARTIN A. ALESSI, INDIVIDUALLY AND D/B/A DISCOUNT BOAT & RV SUPPLY; MELVIN LAUB; EDWARD G. BAKER, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS TRUSTEE OF THE BAKER TRUST OF 6/9/77; ROSEMARIE BAKER, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS TRUSTEE OF THE BAKER TRUST OF 6/9/77; JOHN L. SHEARER,
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Garland E. Burrell, Jr. United States District Judge
ORDER; FED. R. CIV. P. 4(m) NOTICE
Plaintiff filed a "Request and Proposed Order" on December 30, 2010, in which he requests "leave of Court for an additional 60 days to perform service on Defendant John L. Shearer," and "that the Court strike" his "Request Re Dismissal" (ECF No. 6) and the Clerk's related Notice of Voluntary Dismissal (ECF No. 7), in which he voluntarily dismissed Defendants John L. Shearer and Martin A. Alessi under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure ("Rule") 41(a)(2).
Plaintiff's "Request Re Dismissal" filed under Rule 41(a)(2) and effectuated on October 26, 2010, is stricken as Plaintiff requests. Further, Plaintiff is granted sixty (60) days from the date on which this order is filed to effect service of process on John L. Shearer.
Therefore, the Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Conference set for January 31, 2011, is continued to May 9, 2011, at 9:00 a.m. A joint status report shall be filed no later than fourteen (14) days prior to Status Conference.
Plaintiff is notified under Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure that any defendant, other than Defendant John L. Shearer, not served with process within the 120 day period prescribed in that Rule may be dismissed as a defendant in this action unless Plaintiff provides proof of service or "shows good cause for the failure" to serve within this prescribed period in a filing due no later than 4:00 p.m. on January 14, 2011. Further, if Plaintiff fails to serve Defendant John L. Shearer within the sixty (60) day time period provided in this order Plaintiff is warned that Defendant John L. Shearer could be dismissed as a Defendant.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.