Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-00174/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-00174-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 840
Nature of Suit: Trademark
Cause of Action: 15:1125 Trademark Infringement (Lanham 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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GIBRALTER LLC, et al.

Plaintiffs,

v.

DMS FLOWERS, LLC, et al.

Defendants.

Case No. 1:24-cv-00174-CDB

ORDER DISCHARGING APRIL 26, 2024, 

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

(Doc. 4)

On February 6, 2024, Plaintiffs Gibralter, LLC and Divinely, Inc. (“Planitiffs”) filed a 

complaint against Defendants DMS Flowers, LLC., Maria Pantoja, Samantha Andrade, and 

Daniel Andrade (“Defendants”). (Doc. 1). The Court set an initial scheduling conference in this 

action for May 2, 2024. (Doc. 3). Plaintiffs assert each Defendant was “preliminarily served”

with a copy of the proceeds on February 8, 2024, via “PandaDoc” and email. (Doc. 9 at ¶¶ 2, 4).

On April 26, 2024, the Court issued an order to show cause why sanctions should not be 

imposed for Plaintiffs’ failure to prosecute this action and failure to comply with the Court’s 

orders concerning service of process and filings required in advance of the mandatory scheduling 

conference. (Doc. 4). Because of Plaintiffs’ failure to comply, the Court was required to reset 

the mandatory scheduling conference. Id. 

On April 28, 2024, Plaintiffs timely filed a response to the order to show cause along 

with certifactes of service. (Docs. 5-9). Counsel for Plaintiffs attests to having requested service 

Case 1:24-cv-00174-KES-CDB Document 10 Filed 04/29/24 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

of process on Defendants through a third-party process server on April 26, 2024, after not 

receiving responses from Defendants to Plaintiffs’ request for waiver of service. (Doc. 9 at 4). 

To determine whether neglect is excusable, a court must consider four factors: “(1) the 

danger of prejudice to the opposing party; (2) the length of the delay and its potential impact on 

the proceedings; (3) the reason for the delay; and (4) whether the movant acted in good faith.” In 

re Veritas Software Corp. Sec. Litig., 496 F.3d 962, 973 (9th Cir. 2007).

Here, based on counsel’s declarations, the Court finds Plaintiffs’ failure to promptly serve 

Defendants and file proofs of service and separate failure to timely file a joint scheduling report 

constitutes excusable neglect. However, the Court notes that the service waivers Plaintiffs 

transmitted to Defendants and Rule 4, Fed. R. Civ. P., plainly provide that Defendants were 

required to answer within 60 days (e.g., by April 8) or be subject to default. Nevertheless, it 

does not appear from counsel’s declaration that she undertook material efforts to coordinate 

service until the date this Court entered its show cause order more than two weeks later. See 

(Doc. 9 at ¶¶ 12-15). 

Plaintiffs are admonished that pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m), 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). If the 

plaintiff shows good cause for the failure, the court must extend the time for service for an 

appropriate period. Id.

Here, Plaintiffs have not requested an extension beyond 90 days and their response to the 

show cause order (Doc. 9) does not demonstrate good cause.

Accordignly, it is HEREBY ORDERED, the Court’s April 26, 2024, Order to Show 

Cause (Doc. 4) is DISCHARGED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 29, 2024 ___________________ _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:24-cv-00174-KES-CDB Document 10 Filed 04/29/24 Page 2 of 2