Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-03312/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-03312-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

Case No.15-cv-03312-NC 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DISTINCT MEDIA LIMITED,

Plaintiff,

v.

DOE DEFENDANTS 1-50,

Defendant.

Case No.15-cv-03312-NC 

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: 

SERVICE

On October 8, 2015, the Court granted Distinct Media’s ex parte motion for 

expedited discovery, so that Distinct Media could identify the appropriate defendant in this 

case. Since then, Distinct Media has not amended the complaint to name a defendant and 

no proof of service has been filed. “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 specific time.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). Here, Distinct Media filed the complaint on 

July 16, 2015. By January 6, 2016, the Court ORDERS Distinct Media to either identify a 

defendant, or show cause why the Court should not dismiss the case. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 11, 2015 _____________________________________

NATHANAEL M. COUSINS

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:15-cv-03312-BLF Document 15 Filed 12/11/15 Page 1 of 1