Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00651/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00651-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 110
Nature of Suit: Insurance
Cause of Action: 28:1335 Interpleader Action

---

1

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

On May 5, 2016, the plaintiff-in-interpleader filed the instant action. (Doc. 1) On the same 

day, the Court issued the summonses (Doc. 5) and its order setting the mandatory scheduling 

conference to occur on August 9, 2016. (Doc. 6) In its order setting the mandatory scheduling 

conference, the Court advised counsel:

The Court is unable to conduct a scheduling conference until defendants have been 

served with the summons and complaint. Accordingly, plaintiff(s) shall diligently 

pursue service of summons and complaint and dismiss those defendants against whom 

plaintiff(s) will not pursue claims. Plaintiff(s) shall promptly file proofs of service of 

the summons and complaint so the Court has a record of service. Counsel are referred 

to F.R.Civ.P., Rule 4 regarding the requirement of timely service of the complaint. 

Failure to timely serve summons and complaint may result in the imposition of 

sanctions, including the dismissal of unserved defendants.

(Doc. 6 at 1-2, emphasis added) Nevertheless, Plaintiff has not filed a proof of service of the 

summons and complaint as to the Estate of Mark Madrigali. Therefore, the Court ORDERS,

1. No later than August 4, 2016, the plaintiff SHALL show cause why sanctions should 

TRANSAMERICA LIFE INSURANCE 

COMPANY,

 Plaintiff-in-Interpleader,

v.

ESTATE OF MARK MADRIGALI, et al.,

Defendants-in-Interpleader.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:16-cv-00651 DAD JLT 

ORDER TO PLANTIFF TO SHOW CAUSE WHY 

SANCTIONS SHOUD NOT BE IMPOSED

Case 1:16-cv-00651-DAD-JLT Document 12 Filed 07/29/16 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

not be imposed for the failure to serve and file proof of service to the Estate of Mark Madrigali. 

Alternatively, within the same time period, the plaintiff may file proof of service of the action to the 

Estate of Mark Madrigali.1

Plaintiff is reminded of the service obligations under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4.2 Failure to comply 

may result in the imposition of sanctions, including the dismissal of unserved defendants.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 29, 2016 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

 

1

The Court notes that the complaint alleges that “The Estate of Mark Madrigali (the “Estate”) is being administered or will 

be administered in Kern County, California.” (Doc. 1 at 2) Thus, at least as of now, it appears that service may be 

accomplished.

2

Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m) requires the Court sua sponte to dismiss defendants who have not been served within 90 days of the 

filing of the complaint unless good cause is shown.

Case 1:16-cv-00651-DAD-JLT Document 12 Filed 07/29/16 Page 2 of 2