Filed: Sep. 11, 2018
Latest Update: Sep. 11, 2018
Summary: ORDER DISCHARGING ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE (Doc. 4) JENNIFER L. THURSTON , Magistrate Judge . On September 7, 2018, the Court ordered the plaintiffs and their counsel to show cause why sanctions should not be imposed for their failure to comply with the Courts orders, to prosecute this action and to comply with Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(m). (Doc. 4) The Court noted that it had "repeatedly" had to issue such orders to the plaintiffs and their counsel in several cases for the same reason. See United Africa
Summary: ORDER DISCHARGING ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE (Doc. 4) JENNIFER L. THURSTON , Magistrate Judge . On September 7, 2018, the Court ordered the plaintiffs and their counsel to show cause why sanctions should not be imposed for their failure to comply with the Courts orders, to prosecute this action and to comply with Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(m). (Doc. 4) The Court noted that it had "repeatedly" had to issue such orders to the plaintiffs and their counsel in several cases for the same reason. See United African..
More
ORDER DISCHARGING ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
(Doc. 4)
JENNIFER L. THURSTON, Magistrate Judge.
On September 7, 2018, the Court ordered the plaintiffs and their counsel to show cause why sanctions should not be imposed for their failure to comply with the Courts orders, to prosecute this action and to comply with Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(m). (Doc. 4) The Court noted that it had "repeatedly" had to issue such orders to the plaintiffs and their counsel in several cases for the same reason. See United African-Asian Abilities Club et al., v, 6301 Ming Associates, L.L.C., Case No. 1:18-cv-00106 LJO JLT (Doc. 6); United African-Asian Abilities Club et al., v. Laurelglen Properties, LLC, Case No. 1:18-cv-00081 AWI JLT (Doc. 5).
In response, the plaintiffs report they have made diligent efforts to serve the defendants to no avail. (Doc. 5; Doc. 5-1) Nevertheless, they do not indicate what they intend to do going forward.
In their response to the order to show cause, they explain also they acted diligently in obtaining timely service in the two other cases (6301 Ming Associates and Laurelglen Properties) and that, in fact, they have preserved judicial resources by their conduct because they have managed to resolve each of these cases and dismiss them1. This response misses the mark. In these other cases2 and the current one, the plaintiffs have failed to diligently move the cases forward.
In this case, they have failed to take action to effect service despite their inability to obtain personal service. In the other two, they failed to seek default despite that the defendants failed to appear for months after they were obligated to do so. In all three of these cases, the Court has been required to issue orders to show cause, simply to ensure the cases would move forward. Thus, despite that these other two cases have been dismissed, the conduct of the plaintiffs' and their counsel have not preserved this Court's limited judicial resources. In any event, the Court ORDERS:
1. The order to show cause is DISCHARGED. However, the plaintiffs and their counsel are admonished that they SHALL properly track their cases filed in this District to ensure that the Court is not required to again issue an order to show cause in any of their cases. If it occurs again, the Court will not have any reluctance in issuing heavy sanctions;
2. No later than October 10, 2018, the plaintiffs SHALL effect service or dismiss the case or the Court will recommend it be dismissed for violation of Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(m).
IT IS SO ORDERED.