Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-02352/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-02352-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 18:1962 Racketeering (RICO) 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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PATRICIA BONELLI,

Plaintiff,

v.

U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, 

et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 14-cv-02352-MEJ 

ORDER DISCHARGING SECOND OSC

ORDER SETTING SERVICE 

DEADLINE

On November 14, 2014, the Court ordered Plaintiff Patricia Bonelli to show cause why this 

case should not be dismissed for failure to serve within the time required by Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 4. Dkt. No. 13. Having received Plaintiff’s response and First Amended Complaint, 

the Court discharged the Order to Show Cause and ordered her to complete service by January 13, 

2015. Dkt. No. 16. As there was still no indication that Plaintiff had completed service, the Court 

issued a second ordered to show cause on January 20, 2015. Dkt. No. 17. The Court has now 

received Plaintiff’s response, in which she states that Defendants were served on January 14. Dkt. 

No. 18. 

Having reviewed Plaintiff’s response, the second order to show cause is DISCHARGED. 

However, based on the certificate of service Plaintiff submitted, it does not appear that she has 

complied with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4. For example, although there are five named 

Defendants in the First Amended Complaint, only three are listed on the certificate of service –

two with the same mailing address and one with no mailing address. It also states that Rich

Waters personally served Defendants, but then stated that he completed service when he

“electronically filed the document(s) with the Clerk of the court by using the CM/ECF system.” 

Thus, it is not clear that Defendants have been served in compliance with Rule 4. Accordingly, 

the Court ORDERS Plaintiff to complete service in compliance with Federal Rule of Civil 

Case 3:14-cv-02352-WHA Document 19 Filed 02/02/15 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

Procedure 4 by March 5, 2015, and file proof of service by March 6, 2015. 

To ensure compliance with the requirements of service, Plaintiff may wish to seek 

assistance from the Legal Help Center, a free service of the Volunteer Legal Services Program, by 

calling 415-782-8982, or by signing up for an appointment on the15th Floor of the Federal 

Courthouse in San Francisco, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, California. At the Legal 

Help Center, you will be able to speak with an attorney who may be able to provide basic legal 

help but not representation. More information is available at 

http://cand.uscourts.gov/helpcentersf. 

The Court also recommends that Plaintiff obtain a copy of the Court’s Handbook for 

Litigants Without a Lawyer, which is available free of charge in the Clerk’s Office, or online at 

http://cand.uscourts.gov/prosehandbk. This handbook provides an explanation of the requirements 

for service.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 2, 2015

______________________________________

MARIA-ELENA JAMES

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:14-cv-02352-WHA Document 19 Filed 02/02/15 Page 2 of 2