Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-04338/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-04338-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 893
Nature of Suit: Environmental Matters
Cause of Action: Environmental Matters

---

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

Two individual defendants have been sued and have appeared using a dba of “Dow

Cleaners.” (See Answer of Aslam Lodhi and Raqia Lodhi, filed November 21, 2006, at

1:19-20.) A third individual defendant has been sued and has appeared using a dba of

“Dow Cleaners Inc.” (See Answer of Dale Briggs, filed November 16, 2006, at 2:1:2.) 

Plaintiff has sued as a separate defendant, however, a “corporation” named “Dow

Cleaners.”

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

HAGSTROM PROPERTIES, L.L.C.,

Plaintiff,

 v.

DOW CLEANERS, et al.,

Defendants /

No. C-06-4338 MMC

ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO

DISMISS TWO REMAINING UNSERVED

DEFENDANTS OR TO SHOW CAUSE

WHY SAID DEFENDANTS SHOULD NOT

BE DISMISSED

At the case management conference conducted March 9, 2007, the Court set a

deadline of May 4, 2007 for plaintiff to serve defendants. At the next case management

conference, conducted June 1, 2007, plaintiff advised the Court that it would file a motion,

by June 11, 2007, to dismiss all unserved defendants. On June 11, 2007, plaintiff filed a

motion to dismiss eight unserved defendants, which motion the Court, by separate order

filed concurrently herewith, has granted. A review of the operative pleading and the docket

indicate, however, that two additional defendants remain unserved, specifically, (1) “Dow

Cleaners, a California corporation aka Dow Cleaners A Jason Co. and aka Dow Cleaners

Inc.,”1

 and (2) “Greig Sweeney, an individual.”

Case 3:06-cv-04338-MMC Document 48 Filed 06/13/07 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

Accordingly, plaintiff is hereby DIRECTED to file, no later than June 22, 2007, a

motion to dismiss the two unserved defendants identified above or to show cause why said

two defendants, or either of them, should not be dismissed without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 13, 2007 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-04338-MMC Document 48 Filed 06/13/07 Page 2 of 2