IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
April 3, 2012
SCOTT N. JOHNSON, PLAINTIFF,
LIEN P. TRUONG; ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
On February 14, 2012, the court ordered plaintiff that if he did not comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) and effect service on defendant Protech Roofing, LLC, the landlord of Complete Nails (ECF 1), Protech Roofing would be dismissed from this action. (ECF 11.) Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed Protech Roofing on February 23, 2012. (ECF 12.)*fn1
In the joint status report filed February 8, 2012, defendant Lien P. Truong ("defendant") asserts she is unable to make changes to the property without the landlord's permission. (ECF 9.) Given defendant's alleged lack of control over the property at issue, it is not clear that this court can grant meaningful relief in a claim against a mere tenant of the named property at issue. Accordingly, plaintiff is hereby ORDERED, within fourteen days of the entry of this order, to show cause why Protech Roofing is not a necessary and indispensable party and the removal of barriers alleged in the complaint is readily achievable in its absence. FED. R. CIV. P. 19; Disabled Rights Action Committee v. Las Vegas Events, Inc., 375 F.3d 861, 879-83 (9th Cir. 2004); Botosan v. Paul McNally Realty, 216 F.3d 827, 834 (9th Cir. 2000). Defendant may file a response within seven days of plaintiff's filing, after which the matter will be submitted.
IT IS SO ORDERED.