Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-01605/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-01605-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 110
Nature of Suit: Insurance
Cause of Action: 28:2201 Declaratory Judgement (Insurance)

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PROFESSIONAL SOLUTIONS 

INSURANCE COMPANY,

Plaintiff,

v.

JOHN M. CARDOT, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:19-cv-01605-NONE-SAB

ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO FILE 

PROOF OF SERVICE OR SHOW CAUSE 

WHY THIS ACTION SHOULD NOT BE 

DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO SERVE

THREE-DAY DEADLINE

Professional Solutions Insurance Company (“Plaintiff”) filed this action on November 8, 

2019, against John M. Cardot and Coleman & Horowitt LLP. (ECF No. 1.) On November 12, 

2019, the summons issued and the order setting the mandatory scheduling conference was filed 

on November 14, 2019. (ECF Nos. 5, 6.) 

The order setting the mandatory scheduling conference informed Plaintiff that they were 

to “diligently pursue service of the summons and complaint” and “promptly file proofs of the 

service.” (ECF No. 6 at 1.) Plaintiff was referred to Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure regarding the requirement of timely service of the complaint. (Id. at 1-2.) Further, 

Plaintiff was advised that “[f]ailure to comply may result in the imposition of sanctions, 

including dismissal of unserved Defendants.” (Id. at 2.) The order set the mandatory scheduling 

conference in this matter for February 18, 2020. (Id. at 1.) 

Case 1:19-cv-01605-DAD-SAB Document 8 Filed 02/11/20 Page 1 of 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

2

Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure addresses the time requirements for 

service of the complaint in civil cases. Rule 4(m) provides:

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. But if the plaintiff shows good cause for the failure, the court 

must extend the time for service for an appropriate period.

Here, more than ninety days have passed and Plaintiff has not filed proof that the 

complaint and summons have been served on Defendants. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Within three (3) days of the date of entry of this order, Plaintiff shall either a) file 

proof of service on the defendants in this action; or b) show cause in writing why 

this action should not be dismissed for failure to comply with Rule 4(m) of the 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; 

2. If Plaintiff fails to file a response to this order the Court shall recommend to the 

district judge that this action be dismissed for failure to prosecute; 

3. The mandatory scheduling conference set for February 18, 2020, is continued to 

May 19, 2020 at 11:30 a.m. in Courtroom 9; and

4. The parties shall file a joint scheduling report seven (7) days prior to the 

continued scheduling conference.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 11, 2020 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:19-cv-01605-DAD-SAB Document 8 Filed 02/11/20 Page 2 of 2