Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-02408/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-02408-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 385
Nature of Suit: Property Damage - Product Liability
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Property Damage

---

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

ROSEANA WEARTHERWAX,

Plaintiff,

v.

TAKATA CORPORATION, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 16-cv-02408-MEJ 

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

On May 3, 2016, Plaintiff Roseana Weartherwax filed the instant complaint. Dkt. No. 1. 

To date, no proof of service of the summons and complaint has been filed; the only indication 

service has even been attempted is a June 3, 2016 filing showing that the summons was returned 

unexecuted. See Dkt. No. 8. This matter was scheduled for a Case Management Conference on 

August 4, 2016, but as there was no indication Defendants had been served and Plaintiff failed to 

file any statement or status report of her own, the Court vacated the Conference and ordered 

Plaintiff to file a status report by August 11, 2016. Dkt. No. 9. As of the date of this Order, the 

Court as not received any response from Plaintiff.

“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, pursuant to Rule 4(m), and given Plaintiff’s failure to comply with Court Orders, the 

Court ORDERS Plaintiff to show cause, in writing and no later than September 15, 2016, why 

this case should not be dismissed for failure to serve within the time required by Rule 4(m) and 

failure to comply with this Court’s Orders. Notice is hereby provided that failure to file a written 

response will be deemed an admission that Plaintiff does not intend to prosecute, and the case will 

Case 3:16-cv-02408-MEJ Document 10 Filed 09/07/16 Page 1 of 2
2

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

be dismissed without prejudice. Thus, it is imperative that the Court receive a written response by 

the deadline above.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 7, 2016

______________________________________

MARIA-ELENA JAMES

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:16-cv-02408-MEJ Document 10 Filed 09/07/16 Page 2 of 2