The opinion of the court was delivered by: Jennifer L. Thurston United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER CONTINUING SCHEDULING CONFERENCE
On April 10, 2012, Plaintiffs filed the instant action. (Doc. 1) At that time, the Court issued its order setting the mandatory scheduling conference on July 26, 2012. (Doc. 5) On May 23, 2012, the Court reset the conference to August 2, 2012. (Doc. 6)
In its order setting the mandatory scheduling conference, the Court advised counsel: The Court is unable to conduct a scheduling conference until defendants have been served with the summons and complaint. Accordingly, plaintiff(s) shall diligently pursue service of summons and complaint and dismiss those defendants against whom plaintiff(s) will not pursue claims. Plaintiff(s) shall promptly file proofs of service of the summons and complaint so the Court has a record of service. Counsel are referred to F.R.Civ.P., Rule 4 regarding the requirement of timely service of the complaint. Failure to timely serve summons and complaint may result in the imposition of sanctions, including the dismissal of unserved defendants.
(Doc. 5 at 1-2, emphasis added) Despite this warning, Plaintiffs have not filed proof of service of the 2 summons and complaint nor have Defendants appeared. Moreover, despite that the joint scheduling 3 report was due on July 26, 2012, but was not filed. 4
Therefore, the Court ORDERS,
1. The scheduling conference, currently set on August 2, 2012, is continued to October 11, 2012 at 9:30 a.m. at the United States Courthouse at 510 19th Street, Bakersfield, CA. 7
2. Plaintiffs are reminded of their service obligations under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4. Failure to comply may result in the imposition of sanctions, including the dismissal of unserved defendants.
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw ...