ADKINS v. EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS, INC., 5:16-cv-02150-EJD. (2016)
Court: District Court, N.D. California
Number: infdco20160816732
Visitors: 14
Filed: Aug. 15, 2016
Latest Update: Aug. 15, 2016
Summary: ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE EDWARD J. DAVILA , District Judge . On April 21, 2016, Plaintiff Nadine Adkins ("Plaintiff") filed the Complaint underlying this action. To date, however, the docket does not contain a proof of service or waiver of service for Defendant Pacific Monarch Resorts, Inc. ("Pacific Monarch"), and Pacific Monarch has not appeared in this action. Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides in pertinent part: If a defendant is not served within 90 days after the
Summary: ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE EDWARD J. DAVILA , District Judge . On April 21, 2016, Plaintiff Nadine Adkins ("Plaintiff") filed the Complaint underlying this action. To date, however, the docket does not contain a proof of service or waiver of service for Defendant Pacific Monarch Resorts, Inc. ("Pacific Monarch"), and Pacific Monarch has not appeared in this action. Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides in pertinent part: If a defendant is not served within 90 days after the c..
More
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
EDWARD J. DAVILA, District Judge.
On April 21, 2016, Plaintiff Nadine Adkins ("Plaintiff") filed the Complaint underlying this action. To date, however, the docket does not contain a proof of service or waiver of service for Defendant Pacific Monarch Resorts, Inc. ("Pacific Monarch"), and Pacific Monarch has not appeared in this action.
Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides in pertinent part:
If a defendant is not served within 90 days after the complaint is filed, the court — on motion or on its own after notice to the plaintiff — must dismiss the action without prejudice against that defendant or order that service be made within a specified time. But if the plaintiff shows good cause for the failure, the court must extend the time for service for an appropriate period.
The 90-day period for service provided by Rule 4(m) expired on July 20, 2016. Accordingly, the court issues the instant Order to Show Cause why Pacific Monarch should not be dismissed without prejudice for lack of service. If Plaintiff does not, no later than August 19, 2016, either: (1) file documents to show proof of service of the Summons and Complaint on Pacific Monarch; or (2) explain in writing why service has not been accomplished, the court will so order.
No hearing will be held on the order to show cause unless otherwise ordered by the court.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
