Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_08-cv-00018/USCOURTS-cand-4_08-cv-00018-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 290
Nature of Suit: Other Real Property Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Property Damage

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JUAN J. VADO,

Plaintiff, No. C 08-0018 PJH

v. ORDER OF DISMISSAL

AMERICA SERVICING CO.,

Defendant.

_______________________________/

On May 9, 2008, the court issued an order to show cause why plaintiff’s claims

should not be dismissed for failure to effect service of process pursuant to Federal Rule of

Civil Procedure 4, plaintiff having failed to file the requisite proof of service with the court

regarding service of the summons and complaint. Plaintiff was instructed to file any

opposition to the order to show cause no later than May 19, 2008, or risk dismissal of his

complaint. That deadline having passed, plaintiff still has yet to file any opposition or

response.

When circumstances make such action appropriate, a district court may dismiss an

action for failure to timely effect service of process. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4. Here, plaintiff’s

failure to file a proof of service demonstrating timely service, and his further failure to file

any response to the court’s May 9 order establishing good cause for an extension of time

for service, constitute circumstances warranting the court’s dismissal of plaintiff’s complaint

pursuant to Rule 4(m). See Efaw v. Williams, 473 F.3d 1038, 1040-41 (9th Cir. 2007). 

Moreover, in view of plaintiff’s wholesale failure to respond, the court concludes that any

prejudice to plaintiff as a result of dismissal, is outweighed by the prejudice that the named

but unserved defendants will suffer if the action is allowed to continue. 

Case 4:08-cv-00018-PJH Document 6 Filed 05/21/08 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

Accordingly, the complaint is DISMISSED. The dismissal is without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 21, 2008 ______________________________

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

Case 4:08-cv-00018-PJH Document 6 Filed 05/21/08 Page 2 of 2