Valenzuela v. San Francisco Salvation Army Rehabilitation, 19-cv-03862-TSH. (2019)
Court: District Court, N.D. California
Number: infdco20191010a84
Visitors: 13
Filed: Oct. 09, 2019
Latest Update: Oct. 09, 2019
Summary: ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE THOMAS S. HIXSON , Magistrate Judge . On July 3, 2019, Plaintiff Danelle Valenzuela filed this civil action against San Francisco Salvation Army Rehabilitation, alleging discrimination on the basis of sex. As no proof of service of the summons and complaint has been filed, the Court vacated the October 3, 2019 case management conference and ordered Valenzuela to file a status report by October 7, 2019. ECF No. 7. She failed to respond. "If a defendant is not served withi
Summary: ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE THOMAS S. HIXSON , Magistrate Judge . On July 3, 2019, Plaintiff Danelle Valenzuela filed this civil action against San Francisco Salvation Army Rehabilitation, alleging discrimination on the basis of sex. As no proof of service of the summons and complaint has been filed, the Court vacated the October 3, 2019 case management conference and ordered Valenzuela to file a status report by October 7, 2019. ECF No. 7. She failed to respond. "If a defendant is not served within..
More
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
THOMAS S. HIXSON, Magistrate Judge.
On July 3, 2019, Plaintiff Danelle Valenzuela filed this civil action against San Francisco Salvation Army Rehabilitation, alleging discrimination on the basis of sex. As no proof of service of the summons and complaint has been filed, the Court vacated the October 3, 2019 case management conference and ordered Valenzuela to file a status report by October 7, 2019. ECF No. 7. She failed to respond. "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." Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). Accordingly, the Court ORDERS Valenzuela to show cause, in writing and no later than October 23, 2019, why this case should not be dismissed for failure to serve within the time required by Rule 4(m). Notice is hereby provided that failure to file a written response will be deemed an admission that Valenzuela does not intend to prosecute, and the case will be dismissed without prejudice. Thus, it is imperative the Court receive a written response by the deadline above.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
