Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_16-cv-03670/USCOURTS-cand-4_16-cv-03670-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Other Civil Rights

---

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

JULIE LIO CHU,

Plaintiff,

v.

ADAM DAVID LEE, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 16-cv-03670-PJH 

ORDER GRANTING EXTENSION OF 

TIME IN WHICH TO SERVE 

DEFENDANTS AND DENYING 

MOTION TO TESTIFY

Re: Dkt. Nos. 6, 7

On October 6, 2016, following pro se plaintiff Julie Lio Chu’s failure to appear at a 

scheduled case management conference, the court issued an order to show cause “why 

the case should not be dismissed with prejudice for (1) failure to prosecute, pursuant to 

Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; and (2) failure to effect timely service 

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m).” Dkt. 4.

Chu has filed a response to the order to show cause. Dkt. 7. Although the 

document is not entirely clear, Chu appears to explain that a hospitalization prevented 

her from “show[ing] up on 10/11/2016,” although the case management conference was 

actually scheduled on October 6. 

Chu has also filed a “request to set a motion date for me to testify.” Dkt. 6. As 

testimony is not appropriate at this stage of a lawsuit, the court DENIES this motion.

In light of Chu’s response, the court will not dismiss the complaint at this time

pursuant to Rule 41(b) for failure to prosecute. However, Chu must still effect service on 

the defendants in order for the case to proceed. The court will provide Chu an additional

30 days, i.e., until November 18, in which service of the complaint and summons must 

be made upon defendants, and proof of service filed with the court. If plaintiff does not 

effect service by this date, the case will be dismissed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 4(m).

Case 4:16-cv-03670-PJH Document 8 Filed 10/19/16 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

As plaintiff is proceeding pro se (without a lawyer), the court also refers plaintiff to 

the Legal Help Center, which has locations in San Francisco and Oakland and may be 

able to assist plaintiff in prosecuting her case. As explained in the attached flyer, plaintiff 

can call (415) 782-8982 to schedule an appointment to speak with an attorney who may

provide basic legal help, but not legal representation. Resources for pro se litigants are 

also available online at https://cand.uscourts.gov/proselitigants.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 19, 2016

__________________________________

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

Case 4:16-cv-03670-PJH Document 8 Filed 10/19/16 Page 2 of 2