Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_23-cv-01518/USCOURTS-caed-1_23-cv-01518-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 15:1681 Fair Credit Reporting 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

TERRANCE MARSH, et al.

Plaintiffs,

v.

NATIONS DIRECT MORTGAGE, LLC.

Defendant.

Case No. 1:23-cv-01518-KES-CDB

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY

SANCTIONS SHOULD NOT BE IMPOSED 

FOR PLAINTIFFS’ FAILURE TO 

PROSECUTE THIS ACTION AND TO 

COMPLY WITH THE COURT’S ORDERS; 

ORDER CONTINUING THE MANDATORY 

SCHEDULING CONFERENCE

(Doc. 12)

Plaintiffs Terrance Marsh and Gesele Marsh initiated this action with the filing of a 

complaint against Defendant Nations Direct Mortgate, LLC, on October 24, 2023. (Doc. 1). 

After initially seeking to proceed in forma pauperis, Plaintiffs ultimately paid the filing fee on 

March 13, 2024. (Docs. 2-4, 6, 7-8, 10). On March 19, 2024, the Clerk of the Court issued a 

summons for service on Defendant and the Court entered an order setting a mandatory 

scheduling conference, both of which were served on Plaintiffs. (Docs. 11, 12). The order 

setting the mandatory scheduling conference provides in relevant part:

The Court is unable to conduct a scheduling conference until defendants have 

been served with the summons and complaint. Accordingly, plaintiff(s) shall 

diligently pursue service of summons and complaint and dismiss those defendants 

against whom plaintiff(s) will not pursue claims. Plaintiff(s) shall promptly file 

proofs of service of the summons and complaint so the Court has a record of 

service. Counsel are referred to F.R.Civ.P., Rule 4 regarding the requirement of 

timely service of the complaint Failure to timely serve the summons and 

Case 1:23-cv-01518-KES-CDB Document 13 Filed 05/31/24 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

complaint may result in the imposition of sanctions, including the dismissal of 

unserved defendants.

(Doc. 12 at 1) (emphasis added).

Nothwithstanding this order and the fact that Plaintiffs have had more than two months to 

serve the summons and complaint on Defendant and file proof of service thereon, they have 

seemingly failed to do so or otherwise make a filing with the Court explaining the delay in 

effecting service.

Local Rule 110 provides that “[f]ailure of counsel or of a party to comply with these 

Rules or with any order of the Court may be grounds for imposition by the Court of any and all 

sanctions...within the inherent power of the Court.” The Court has the inherent power to control 

its docket and may, in the exercise of that power, impose sanctions where appropriate, including 

dismissal of the action. Bautista v. Los Angeles County, 216 F.3d 837, 841 (9th Cir. 2000).

For these reasons, the Court ORDERS as follows:

1. No later than June 21, 2024, Plaintiffs SHALL show cause in writing why 

sanctions should not be imposed for their failure to prosecute this action and to serve the 

summons and complaint in a timely fashion as ordered. Alternatively, Plaintiffs may comply 

with this order by filing a proof of service demonstrating the summons and complaint has been 

served on Defendant; and

2. The scheduling conference is CONTINUED to August 1, 2024 at 10:00 a.m.

Failure to timely comply with this order may result in the imposition of sanctions, 

including a recommendation by the undersigned to dismiss this action.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 31, 2024 ___________________ _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:23-cv-01518-KES-CDB Document 13 Filed 05/31/24 Page 2 of 2