Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-01064/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-01064-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 350
Nature of Suit: Motor Vehicle Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1364 Auto Negligence

---

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

JUANA FLORES,

Plaintiff,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:24-cv-01064-KES-CDB

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY

SANCTIONS SHOULD NOT BE IMPOSED 

FOR PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO 

PROSECUTE THIS ACTION AND TO 

COMPLY WITH THE COURT’S ORDERS 

ORDER CONTINUING THE 

MANDATORY SCHEDULING 

CONFERENCE

ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO 

EFFECT SERVICE OF THIS ORDER AND 

TO FILE PROOF OF SERVICE

FIVE-DAY DEADLINE

Plaintiff Juana Flores (“Plaintiff”) initiated this action with the filing of a complaint on 

September 5, 2024. (Doc. 1). The following day, the Clerk of the Court issued summonses and 

the Court entered an order setting a mandatory scheduling conference for December 2, 2024. 

(Docs. 4-6). The Court’s order directed Plaintiff to “diligently pursue service of summons and 

complaint” and “promptly file proofs of service.” (Doc. 6 at 1). The order further advised 

Plaintiff that failure to diligently prosecute this action “may result in the imposition of sanctions, 

including the dismissal of unserved defendants.” Id. To date, Plaintiff has not filed proofs of 

Case 1:24-cv-01064-KES-CDB Document 9 Filed 11/22/24 Page 1 of 3
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

service, and no Defendant has appeared in the action.

Local Rule 110 provides that “[f]ailure of counsel or of a party to comply with these 

Rules or with any order of the Court may be grounds for imposition by the Court of any and all 

sanctions...within the inherent power of the Court.” The Court has the inherent power to control 

its docket and may, in the exercise of that power, impose sanctions where appropriate, including 

dismissal of the action. Bautista v. Los Angeles County, 216 F.3d 837, 841 (9th Cir. 2000). 

In addition, Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 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.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). Absent a showing of good 

cause, failure to comply with Rule 4(m) requires dismissal of any unserved defendant.

The Court takes judicial notice that this is not the first instance Plaintiff’s Counsel 

Jonathan Bakhsheshian has been admonished about his failure to comply with the Court’s orders 

and Rule 4(m) in connection with effecting service of process.. See Flores v. United States, et 

al., No. 1:23-cv-01742-KES-CDB (Doc. 9). In the face of the Court’s previous admonishment, it 

appears Plaintiff’s Counsel continues to cavalierly disregard orders of the Court and the Federal 

Rules of Civil Procedure. Accordingly, the imposition of sanctions appears particularly 

appropriate under these circumstances.

Conclusion and Order

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that within five (5) days of entry of 

this order, Plaintiff SHALL show cause in writing why sanctions should not be imposed –

including dismissal of unserved Defendants or this action in its entirety – for Plaintiff’s failure to 

prosecute and to serve the summonses and complaint in a timely manner. Filing summonses 

returned executed following entry of this order WILL NOT relieve Plaintiff of her obligation to 

respond to this order in writing.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the scheduling conference previously set for December 

2, 2024, is CONTINUED to January 30, 2025 at 10:30 a.m.

And IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff shall serve a copy of this order on 

Case 1:24-cv-01064-KES-CDB Document 9 Filed 11/22/24 Page 2 of 3
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

3

Defendants within five (5) days of entry of this order and promptly file proof of service thereof.

Any failure by Plaintiff to timely respond to this order to show cause will result in 

the imposition of sanctions, up to and including a recommendation to dismiss this action.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 22, 2024 ___________________ _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:24-cv-01064-KES-CDB Document 9 Filed 11/22/24 Page 3 of 3