UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
March 11, 2013
CITY OF PALMDALE, ET AL.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Present: The Honorable Sheri Pym, United States Magistrate Judge
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Kimberly I. Carter None None
Deputy Clerk Court Reporter / Recorder Tape No. Attorneys Present for Plaintiff: Attorneys Present for Defendant:
None Present None Present Proceedings: (In Chambers) Order to Show Cause Why This Case Should Not Be
Dismissed for Failure to Effect Service
In its October 25, 2012 order in this case, the court advised plaintiff that, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m), service of the summons and Second Amended Complaint must be accomplished on each named defendant within 120 days after the filing of the Second Amended Complaint. The court told plaintiff that, by the court's order, the 120-day period was extended and would expire on February 22, 2013. The court further ordered plaintiff to file proof of service on each defendant by March 1, 2013. The court warned plaintiff that her failure to effectuate service by February 22, may result in the dismissal of the action without prejudice as to any unserved defendants by reason of plaintiff's failure to prosecute, unless plaintiff can show good for extending the time for service.
As of the date of the instant order, there is no indication that plaintiff has served any of the defendants, as she has not filed proof of service on any of the defendants.
Accordingly, plaintiff is ORDERED to show cause in writing by April 1, 2013 this case should not be dismissed without prejudice for plaintiff's failure to serve defendants within the time required under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m).
© 1992-2013 VersusLaw Inc.