Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-00378/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-00378-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 480
Nature of Suit: Consumer Credit
Cause of Action: 15:1692 Fair Debt Collection Act

---

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

SANDRA BATISTE, )

) 2:08-cv-00378-GEB-EFB

Plaintiff, )

) ORDER

v. ) 

)

NATIONAL INFORMATION SERVICES, )

INC.; AMERICAN GENERAL FINANCE, )

INC.; and MIKE DOE, )

) 

Defendants. )

)

The parties’ “Further Joint Status Report...” (“FJSR”)

filed on June 9, 2008 does not provide sufficient information for

issuance of a meaningful Rule 16 scheduling order. 

Plaintiff was required to include in the FJSR her

response to a Notice issued under Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure on May 5, 2008, since it appeared that two

defendants would not be served within Rule 4(m)’s 120 day service

period. Plaintiff’s response does not reveal Plaintiff has good

cause justifying extension of Rule 4(m)’s 120 day service period. 

It is unclear when Plaintiff began trying to learn the whereabouts

of unserved Defendant National Information Systems, and Plaintiff

states she “has no information as to the location of ‘Mike Doe’

Case 2:08-cv-00378-GEB-EFB Document 14 Filed 06/18/08 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

Although Plaintiff’s complaint names National Information 1

Services, Inc. as a defendant and the FJSR caption includes this

defendant, the FJSR refers to service of process on Defendant National

Information Systems, Inc. (FJSR at 3:13-15.) This discrepancy shows

that the name of the unserved party is unclear.

and/or if this is the true identify of this Defendant.” (FJSR at 1

4.) 

Therefore, any unserved defendant may be dismissed from

this action on or after August 11, 2008, unless Plaintiff files a

proof of service showing service on now unserved defendant(s) no

later than August 8, 2008, or shows in a filing due on August 8,

2008, good cause justifying an extension of the service period. 

Further, Plaintiff states in the FJSR she “still

anticipates identifying the individual(s) or company used in the

attempted repossession of [a] vehicle and may seek to amend and add

these additional parties.” (Id.) Plaintiff fails to provide

information about the timing of the referenced anticipated

amendments; this provision of the FJSR is incomplete since this 

information is not provided. 

Since two defendants have not been served, the present

scheduling conference set for June 23, 2008, is rescheduled to

commence at 9:00 a.m. on September 15, 2008. A further Joint

Status Report shall be filed no later than September 1, 2008.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 17, 2008

 

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:08-cv-00378-GEB-EFB Document 14 Filed 06/18/08 Page 2 of 2