UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
September 30, 2011
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hon. Anthony J. Battaglia U.S. District Judge
Due to the inactivity in this case, the Court sua sponte performed a review of the docket and has determined that service of the summons and complaint was not effected by Plaintiff pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m). The complaint in this action was filed on December 30, 2010. The summons filed by Plaintiff on January 12, 2011, Doc. No. 5, fails to identify the name and address of the defendant allegedly served and the proof of service is completely blank.
Rule 4(m), captioned "Time Limit for Service," currently provides:
"If service of the summons and complaint is not made upon a defendant within 120 days after the filing of the complaint, the court, upon motion or on its own initiative after notice to the plaintiff, shall dismiss the action without prejudice as to that defendant or direct that service be effected within a specified time; provided that if the plaintiff shows good cause for the failure, the court shall extend the time for service for an appropriate period...." (Emphasis added.)
Based upon the foregoing, the Court finds Plaintiff has failed to serve Defendant(s) pursuant to Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. As such, the Plaintiff shall thirty (30) days from the date of this Order to effect proper service on Defendant(s). Plaintiff is warned that failure to do so will result in this Court DISMISSING Plaintiff's Complaint, Doc. No. 1, WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.