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.

Af Holdings LLC v. John Doe

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION


January 22, 2013

AF HOLDINGS LLC,
PLAINTIFF,
v.
JOHN DOE,
DEFENDANT.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Lucy H. Koh United States District Judge

ORDER CONTINUING ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE HEARING

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

On January 11, 2013, the Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause why this case should not be 19 dismissed because the Complaint in this matter was filed approximately 7 months ago and, despite 20 being granted leave to take expedited discovery to discover Defendants' name, Plaintiff has not 21 identified or served Defendant. ECF No. 27 ("OSC"). Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 22 4(m), Plaintiff was required to serve Defendant within 120 days of filing the Complaint. The order 23 to show cause hearing is set for January 23, 2013. See id. 24

On January 17, 2013, Plaintiff filed a response to the OSC. ECF No. 28. In Plaintiff's 25 response, Plaintiff states that Plaintiff has recently discovered that the subscriber whose account 26 was used to download Plaintiff's copyrighted material is a "governmental entity." Id. at 1. 27

Plaintiff states that Plaintiff "is currently in discussions with legal counsel for the governmental 28 entity, and hopes to soon have a better idea of how to move forward with the instant action." Id.

In order to give Plaintiff additional time to obtain the name of the Doe Defendant, the Court 2 hereby CONTINUES the hearing on the OSC from January 23, 2013 to March 6, 2013 at 2:00 p.m. 3

Plaintiff is ordered to file an additional response to the OSC on February 27, 2013 updating the 4 Court on the status of Plaintiff's discussion with the governmental entity. Plaintiff is advised that 5 if Plaintiff has not served the Defendant by February 27, 2013 and/or cannot demonstrate good 6 cause as to why this case should not be dismissed, the Court will dismiss Plaintiff's case with 7 prejudice.*fn1

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 18, 2012

United States District Court For the Northern District of California


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.