Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_14-cv-00078/USCOURTS-cand-4_14-cv-00078-12/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Other Contract

---

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

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

OAKLAND DIVISION

ILLUMINATION DYNAMICS CO., LTD., a 

foreign company,

Plaintiff,

vs.

PACIFIC LIGHTING SOLUTIONS L.L.C.,

and BILL ZHANG, an individual,

Defendants.

Case No: C 14-0078

ORDER RE SERVICE ON 

DEFENDANT BILL ZHANG

On January 16, 2014, Plaintiff Illumination Dynamics (“Plaintiff”) commenced the 

instant breach of contract action against Defendants Pacific Lighting Solutions L.L.C. and 

Bill Zhang (“Zhang”), who resides in China. Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint on 

March 19, 2014, and a Second Amended Complaint on July 30, 2014. Dkt. 30, 66. In a 

filing submitted on December 16, 2014, the parties indicate that Zhang has not yet been 

served. Dkt. 79 at 2.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) requires that service of process be effectuated 

on all defendants within 120 days after the filing of the complaint. Rule 4(m)’s 120-day 

time limit, however, does not apply to foreign defendants. See Lucas v. Natoli, 936 F.2d 

432 (9th Cir. 1991). Nevertheless, “the amount of time allowed for foreign service is not 

unlimited.” Nylok Corp. v. Fastener World Inc., 396 F.3d 805, 807 (7th Cir. 2005). A

district court thus has the discretion to impose reasonable time limits for service on foreign 

defendants. Mitchell v. Theriault, 516 F. Supp. 2d 450, 458 (M.D. Pa. 2007) (imposing 

120-day time limit to effect service on a foreign defendant after the action had been 

pending for three months).

Case 4:14-cv-00078-SBA Document 82 Filed 01/30/15 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

Although the instant action has been pending for over a year, Zhang remains to be 

served and there is no indication in the record when service will be effectuated. Given that 

various impending deadlines under the Court’s pretrial order, including a trial date of July 

13, 20151, it is imperative that Plaintiff effectuate service on Zhang forthwith. 

Accordingly, Plaintiff has one hundred and twenty (120) days from the date this order is 

filed in which to effect proper service of process on Defendant Zhang. In the event 

Plaintiff fails to comply with this Order, the Court may dismiss Zhang from the action.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 30, 2015 ______________________________

SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG

United States District Judge

 

1 The parties’ request to enlarge the pretrial schedule by three months will be 

addressed in a separate order. Dkt. 79. 

Case 4:14-cv-00078-SBA Document 82 Filed 01/30/15 Page 2 of 2