Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-00907/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-00907-0/pdf.json

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

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

1

 Palm submits no evidence to support its assertion that plaintiffs served it on June 21, 2006. The

docket for this case indicates the complaint was filed on February 10, 2006. As the plaintiffs have

filed nothing in response to Palm's motion (in violation of Civil L.R. 7-3(a), (b)), the court will

accept Palm's representation regarding when plaintiffs served it.

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT FOR UNTIMELY SERVICE; ORDER TO

SHOW CAUSE TO REGINALD VON TERRELL, THE TERRELL LAW GROUP, DONALD CHIDI AMAMGBO, AND

AMAMGBO & ASSOCIATES AS TO WHY THEY HAVE NOT VIOLATED 28 U.S.C. § 1927—Master File No. C-05-03774

RMW

JAH

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

E-FILED on 9/12/06

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

In re PALM TREO 600 and 650 LITIGATION

This Document Relates To:

WILLIAMS, C-06-00907

Master File No. C-05-03774 RMW

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S

MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT FOR

UNTIMELY SERVICE; ORDER TO SHOW

CAUSE TO REGINALD VON TERRELL,

THE TERRELL LAW GROUP, DONALD

CHIDI AMAMGBO, AND AMAMGBO &

ASSOCIATES AS TO WHY THEY HAVE

NOT VIOLATED 28 U.S.C. § 1927

[Re Docket No. 4]

Defendant Palm, Inc. moves to dismiss the complaint of plaintiffs Fred Williams and

Carman Johnson under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(5). The motion was heard on

September 1, 2006. According to Palm's motion,1

 plaintiffs served Palm 130 days after filing their

complaint. Rule 4(m) states

If service of the summons and complaint is not made upon a defendant within 120

days after the filing of the complaint, the court, upon motion or on its own initiative

after notice to the plaintiff, shall dismiss the action without prejudice as to that

Case 5:06-cv-00907-RMW Document 14 Filed 09/12/06 Page 1 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

2

 Under the terms of the order consolidating six actions as In re Palm Treo 600 and 650 Litigation, the relation of this action to the consolidated action is sufficient to add this action to the consolidated

proceedings. See Pretrial Order no. 1 ¶ 1. The parties' stipulation regarding consolidation is thus

unnecessary.

3

 As Palm points out, paragraph thirty-one of Williams and Johnson's complaint refers to "Plaintiff

Sun," one of the plaintiffs from the original complaint in Loew. Williams and Johnson's complaint

was filed with "C 05 3980"—the case number for Loew—listed on the first page. Palm also admits

that dismissal of Williams and Johnson's complaint will not affect their possible recovery as

potential class members in the consolidated action.

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT FOR UNTIMELY SERVICE; ORDER TO

SHOW CAUSE TO REGINALD VON TERRELL, THE TERRELL LAW GROUP, DONALD CHIDI AMAMGBO, AND

AMAMGBO & ASSOCIATES AS TO WHY THEY HAVE NOT VIOLATED 28 U.S.C. § 1927—Master File No. C-05-03774

RMW

JAH 2

defendant or direct that service be effected within a specified time; provided that if

the plaintiff shows good cause for the failure, the court shall extend the time for

service for an appropriate period. 

Palm points out that Williams and Johnson's complaint is nearly identical to the original complaint

from Loew v. Palm, Inc., Case No. C-05-03980; the Loew action is now part of the consolidated

action against Palm.2

 See Collanton Decl., Exs. 1-3. Palm requests that because Williams and

Johnson's complaint adds nothing to this litigation,3 their complaint be dismissed with prejudice. 

Plaintiffs did not file an opposition to the motion or a statement of non-opposition, or advise the

court or opposing counsel that they would not appear at the hearing on the motion. Rule 4(m)

only allows dismissal without prejudice; the court will therefore Williams and Johnson's complaint

without prejudice. 

The filing of a putative class action complaint that is nearly identical to (and apparently

copied from) one already pending does nothing but needlessly increase the administrative work

necessary to determine the merits underlying the first complaint. At the time Williams and

Johnson filed their complaint, the prior six actions had been consolidated, and a management

structure for plaintiffs' counsel established, and a consolidated complaint filed. See Pretrial Order

no. 1 ¶¶ 6-10, 13. Williams and Johnson's failure to timely serve led to a motion to dismiss, which

they neither opposed nor filed a statement of non-opposition in response to. None of this work

was necessary or advanced the interests of Williams and Johnson.

Williams and Johnson's attorneys—Reginald Von Terrell, the Terrell Law Group, Donald

Chidi Amamgbo, and Amamgbo & Associates—are therefore ordered to show cause why the

court should not find they have "unreasonably and vexatiously" multiplied proceedings and

Case 5:06-cv-00907-RMW Document 14 Filed 09/12/06 Page 2 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT FOR UNTIMELY SERVICE; ORDER TO

SHOW CAUSE TO REGINALD VON TERRELL, THE TERRELL LAW GROUP, DONALD CHIDI AMAMGBO, AND

AMAMGBO & ASSOCIATES AS TO WHY THEY HAVE NOT VIOLATED 28 U.S.C. § 1927—Master File No. C-05-03774

RMW

JAH 3

require them to pay defendant's costs, expenses, and reasonable attorneys' fees. See 28 U.S.C. §

1927. Their explanation should include why they filed the complaint in this action, what they

hoped to gain for their clients by doing so, why they did not appear at the hearing or file a

statement of non-opposition, and why they did not otherwise notify the court or opposing counsel

as to the fact that they would not appear for the scheduled hearing.

ORDER

For the foregoing reasons, the court 

(1) dismisses Williams and Johnson's complaint without prejudice, and

(2) orders Reginald Von Terrell, the Terrell Law Group, Donald Chidi Amamgbo,

and Amamgbo & Associates to show cause by September 22, 2006 why they should

not be required under 28 U.S.C. § 1927 to pay defendant's costs, expenses, and

reasonable attorneys' fees.

DATED: 9/6/06

RONALD M. WHYTE

United States District Judge

Case 5:06-cv-00907-RMW Document 14 Filed 09/12/06 Page 3 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT FOR UNTIMELY SERVICE; ORDER TO

SHOW CAUSE TO REGINALD VON TERRELL, THE TERRELL LAW GROUP, DONALD CHIDI AMAMGBO, AND

AMAMGBO & ASSOCIATES AS TO WHY THEY HAVE NOT VIOLATED 28 U.S.C. § 1927—Master File No. C-05-03774

RMW

JAH 4

Notice of this document has been electronically sent to:

Counsel for Plaintiffs:

Reginald Von Terrell REGGIET2@AOL.COM 

Donald Chidi Amamgbo DonaldAmamgbo@Citycom.com 

Ira P. Rothken ndca@techfirm.com

Counsel for Defendant:

Roger E. Collanton rcollanton@mofo.com 

Counsel are responsible for distributing copies of this document to co-counsel that have not

registered for e-filing under the court's CM/ECF program.

Dated: 9/12/06 /s/ JH

Chambers of Judge Whyte

Case 5:06-cv-00907-RMW Document 14 Filed 09/12/06 Page 4 of 4