Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Pilot, Inc. v. Anker Technology Corporation,, 17-cv-04918-JST. (2017)

Court: District Court, N.D. California Number: infdco20171219875 Visitors: 3
Filed: Dec. 18, 2017
Latest Update: Dec. 18, 2017
Summary: ORDER CONTINUING CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE; ORDER REQUIRING SERVICE; ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE JON S. TIGAR , District Judge . Plaintiff filed this patent infringement case on August 23, 2017, naming only Anker Technology Corporation as a defendant, but did not serve the complaint. ECF No. 1. On November 23, 2017, Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint ("FAC"). ECF No. 5. The FAC names Anker Technology Corporation as a defendant, but also names as defendants Anker USA, Inc., Anker North Ameri
More

ORDER CONTINUING CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE; ORDER REQUIRING SERVICE; ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

Plaintiff filed this patent infringement case on August 23, 2017, naming only Anker Technology Corporation as a defendant, but did not serve the complaint. ECF No. 1. On November 23, 2017, Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint ("FAC"). ECF No. 5. The FAC names Anker Technology Corporation as a defendant, but also names as defendants Anker USA, Inc., Anker North America, LLC, and Hunan Oceanwing E-Commerce Co., Ltd. Id. 117 days have passed since the filing of the original complaint.

Service of process on a defendant must be made within 90 days of filing a complaint. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). The filing of an amended complaint does not restart the 90 day period provided by Rule 4(m) "except as to those defendants newly added in the amended complaint." Carr v. Int'l Game Tech., 770 F.Supp.2d 1080, 1100 (D. Nev. 2011) (quoting Bolden v. City of Topeka, 441 F.3d 1129, 1148 (10th Cir.2006)).

Plaintiff is ordered to serve all defendants named in the FAC by February 19, 2018. As to any Defendants whom Plaintiff does not serve by that date, Plaintiff is ordered to show cause why those defendants should not be dismissed. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). A written response to this order is due March 12, 2018. A hearing on this order will take place on March 21, 2018 at 2:00 p.m.

On November 3, 2017, this case was reassigned to the undersigned. On November 6, 2017, the Court set a Case Management Conference for December 20, 2017 and ordered the filing of a Joint Case Management Statement by December 11, 2017. Plaintiff did not file a Case Management Statement. Plaintiff is ordered to show cause why it should not be sanctioned for violation of a court order and violation of Civil Local Rule 16-9(a). See Evon v. Law Offices of Sidney Mickell, 688 F.3d 1015, 1035 (9th Cir. 2012) (district court has inherent authorize to impose sanctions for deliberate violation of a court order, even without proof of bad faith or improper motive); Civ. L.R. 1-4 ("Failure by counsel or a party to comply with any duly promulgated local rule or any Federal Rule may be a ground for imposition of any authorized sanction."). A written response to this order is due March 12, 2018. A hearing on this order will take place on March 21, 2018 at 2:00 p.m.

The Case Management Conference scheduled for December 20, 2017 is continued to March 21, 2018 at 2:00 p.m. A Joint Case Management Statement is due by March 12, 2018.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer