Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-00481/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-00481-4/pdf.json

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED MERCHANT SERVICES OF CA, 

LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

SHAUN STACKS PHOTOGRAPHY, LLC, 

et al.

Defendants.

Case No. 1:24-cv-00481-JLT-SAB

ORDER DISCHARGING NOVEMBER 21, 

2024 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE; ORDER 

SETTING DEADLINE TO FILE MOTIONS 

TO EXTEND TIME TO SERVE 

DEFENDANTS OR SEEK ALTERNATIVE 

SERVICE METHODS 

(ECF Nos. 11, 12)

DECEMBER 6, 2024 DEADLINE

On April 23, 2024, Plaintiff filed this action alleging breach of contract and breach of 

personal guaranty against Defendants Shaun Stacks Photography, LLC and Shaun Michael 

Gonzales. (ECF No. 1.) The initial scheduling conference was set for October 10, 2024. (ECF 

No. 3.) On September 6, 2024, the Court ordered that Plaintiff file a notice regarding status of 

service on Defendants as neither had appeared and Plaintiff had not filed proof of service. (ECF 

No. 5.) On September 11, 2024, Plaintiff requested, and the Court granted, a thirty day extension 

of time to serve defendants pursuant to Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (ECF 

No. 6, 7.) The Court reset the scheduling conference for December 3, 2024 and ordered that 

Plaintiff complete service on Defendants by October 11, 2024. (ECF No. 7.) On September 26, 

2024, Plaintiff filed proof of service on Defendants, representing service was effectuated on 

September 24, 2024 and Defendants’ responses were due on October 15, 2024. (ECF No. 8.)

Case 1:24-cv-00481-JLT-SAB Document 13 Filed 12/03/24 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

Because Defendants had not appeared and Plaintiff had not requested entry of default, the 

Court issued an order on November 13, 2024, again prompting Plaintiff for the status of the 

action and the parties’ readiness for the scheduling conference. (ECF No. 9.)

On November 20, 2024, Plaintiff filed a status report proffering that it is not prepared for 

a scheduling conference because it has been unable to serve defendants. (ECF No. 10.) Plaintiff 

requested additional time to file motions to serve Defendants via publication and through the 

California Secretary of State. Plaintiff stated it expected to file the applicable motions no later 

than November 27, 2024. Plaintiff stated it would also simultaneously attempt to serve 

Defendants through the Fresno County Sheriff. 

On November 21, 2024, the Court issued an order to show cause why sanctions should 

not issue for failing to comply with the Court's September 11, 2024 order (ECF No. 7 ) and why 

this Court should not recommend dismissal of this action. (ECF No. 11.) The Court ordered that 

Plaintiff file a response to the order to show cause no later than November 25, 2024. The Court 

also ordered that any motion requesting an extension of time or leave for alternate manner of 

service shall be filed no later than November 27, 2024.

On November 26, 2024, Plaintiff filed an untimely response to the Court’s order to show 

cause. (ECF No. 12.) Plaintiff contends is failure to timely file a response to the Court’s order 

to show cause was due to an internal calendaring error. Plaintiff explained it has experienced 

continued problems serving Defendants, which Plaintiff surmises is due in part to one 

defendant’s pending criminal investigation in Fresno County. Plaintiff acknowledges that 

despite filing a proof of service of a summons return on September 26, 2024, Plaintiff only 

realized service was improper when it was preparing a response to the Court’s November 20, 

2024 request for readiness to proceed to the scheduling conference. Plaintiff requested that the 

Court withhold sanctions and permit Plaintiff’s counsel to effectuate service via alternative 

service methods. Although Plaintiff’s untimely response is not justified, the Court shall 

discharge its November 20, 2024 order to show cause. 

The Court ordered that any motion requesting an extension of time or leave for alternate 

manner of service be filed no later than November 27, 2024. (ECF No. 11.) No motion for 

Case 1:24-cv-00481-JLT-SAB Document 13 Filed 12/03/24 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

service by publication, motion for alternative service, nor motion for an additional extension of 

time to serve Defendants pursuant to Rule 4(m) has been filed and the time by which Plaintiff 

was ordered to do so has passed. However, Plaintiff’s November 26, 2024 response indicates 

Plaintiff still intends to file a motion to effectuate service via alternative service methods. (ECF 

No. 12.) Unlike Plaintiff’s previously proffered November 27, 2024 deadline, Plaintiff does not 

indicate when it will file its motions. The Court shall allow Plaintiff one final opportunity to file 

a motion for service by publication or other alternative manner of service and/or a motion to 

extend time to complete service pursuant to Rule 4(m). 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that any motion requesting an extension of 

time to serve defendants or motion for leave for alternate manner of service shall be filed no 

later than December 6, 2024. Failure to comply with this order will result in the 

recommendation that this action be dismissed without prejudice for failure to serve Defendants 

in compliance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) and failure to comply with previous 

court orders. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 3, 2024 

STANLEY A. BOONE

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 1:24-cv-00481-JLT-SAB Document 13 Filed 12/03/24 Page 3 of 3