Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-00195/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-00195-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 340
Nature of Suit: Marine Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 46:688 Jones 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

09cv195

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARCIN SOKOLOWSKI,

Plaintiffs,

v.

CARNIVAL CRUISE LINES,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No. 09cv195-L(RBB)

ORDER RE: ORDER TO SHOW

CAUSE DENYING AS MOOT JOINT

MOTION FOR STAY AND

ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSING

THE CASE

This case came before the court for a hearing on December 1, 2009 on the court’s order to

show cause why it should not be dismissed for failure to timely serve the summons and the

complaint and for failure to prosecute. Stephen J. Estey, Esq. appeared on behalf of Plaintiff. 

The complaint was filed on February 2, 2009. On May 11, 2009 the court granted the

parties’ joint motion to stay while they arbitrate the dispute. The case was stayed until August

10, 2009. The order further stated that if parties required more time, they had to file, no later

than August 3, 2009, a motion requesting an extension of the stay and a progress report about the

arbitration. On November 5, 2009 the court issued an order to show cause why the case should

not be dismissed because there had been no activity in the case and the complaint had not been

served. On November 17, 2009 the parties filed a joint motion to stay the case until June 18,

2010, while they arbitrate the case.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) provides in pertinent part:

Time Limit for Service. If a defendant is not served within 120 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

Case 3:09-cv-00195-L-RBB Document 9 Filed 12/01/09 Page 1 of 3
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 09cv195

service be made within a specified time. But if the plaintiff shows good cause for

the failure, the court shall extend the time for service for an appropriate period.

Rule 4(m) allows, but does not require, courts to provide additional time for service, "even if

good cause is not shown." Notes of the Advisory Committee on 1993 Amendments to rule 4(m). 

In addition, Rule 41(b) provides in pertinent part:

Involuntary Dismissal; Effect. If the plaintiff fails to prosecute or to comply with

these rules or a court order, a defendant may move to dismiss the action or any

claim against it.

District courts have the authority to dismiss sua sponte “cases that have remained

dormant because of the inaction or dilatoriness of the parties seeking relief.” Link v. Wabash

R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630 (1962); Ash v. Cvetkov, 739 F.2d 493, 496 (9th Cir. 1984). 

Consistent with this authority, Civil Local Rule 41.1(a) provides:

Actions or proceedings which have been pending in this court for more than six

months, without any proceeding or discovery having been taken during such

period, may, after notice, be dismissed by the court for want of prosecution, at the

calling of a calendar prepared for that purpose by the clerk. Such a dismissal shall

be without prejudice, unless otherwise ordered.

Based on Plaintiff’s representations on the record, the failure to comply with the May 11,

2009 order and the subsequent delay incurred in these proceedings were unreasonable. 

Nevertheless, in the interests of justice, the action is not dismissed at this time. Accordingly, it

is hereby ORDERED as follows:

1. This case is TEMPORARILY CLOSED. No later than seven calendar days after the

completion of arbitration, Plaintiff shall file an ex parte application to reopen the case. The

application shall include a copy of the arbitrator’s decision. Plaintiff shall serve Defendant with

process within seven calendar days of filing the ex parte application.

2. The Joint Motion to Stay Federal Proceeding, filed November 17, 2009, is DENIED

as moot.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: December 1, 2009

M. James Lorenz

United States District Court Judge

Case 3:09-cv-00195-L-RBB Document 9 Filed 12/01/09 Page 2 of 3
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

3 09cv195

COPY TO: 

HON. RUBEN B. BROOKS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

ALL PARTIES/COUNSEL

Case 3:09-cv-00195-L-RBB Document 9 Filed 12/01/09 Page 3 of 3