Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-02059/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-02059-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 140
Nature of Suit: Negotiable Instruments
Cause of Action: 15:1601 Truth in Lending

---

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 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

AYISHA BENHAM, 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

AJMAL AKBAR aka JAMAL 

AKBAR; KEITH HOUSTEAD and DOES 

1-20 inclusive, 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 09-2059 SC 

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION 

WITHOUT PREJUDICE 

On March 4, 2010, this Court ordered Plaintiff to show good 

cause why this case should not be dismissed for failure to serve 

the remaining Defendants within the 120-day time limit set out in 

Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Docket No. 61 

("Order to Show Cause"). On March 16, 2010, Plaintiff submitted a 

Response to the Order to Show Cause. Docket No. 62 ("Response"). 

The remaining defendants are each individuals who remain in this 

suit after all causes of action have been dismissed with prejudice 

as to all of the corporate defendants whom Plaintiff had managed to 

effectively serve. See Docket No. 59 ("Order Granting Motion to 

Dismiss"). 

 In the Response, counsel for Plaintiff explains that he 

performed several checks and searches for Defendant Keith Houstead 

("Houstead"), and ultimately found an address. Response at 2. 

Plaintiff claims that he made "[s]everal attempts to effectute 

Case 3:09-cv-02059-SC Document 63 Filed 03/17/10 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

United 

States District 

Court

For the Northern District of California 

service" on this Defendant, but does not explain when such attempts 

were made. Id. More importantly, Plaintiff does not even attempt 

to explain why service had not been effectuated even though 

Houstead was named in the original Complaint, filed over ten months 

ago. A delay of this length cannot be excused simply because 

Houstead wasn't available on "several" undescribed instances. 

 Plaintiff also indicates that he had not attempted service on 

Defendant Ajmal Akbar ("Akbar") until March 16, 2010, the same day 

that Plaintiff's Response to the Order to Show Cause was due. Id. 

Akbar was first named in Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint filed 

on October 30, 2009, and there can be no excuse for failing to even 

attempt service until after the 120-day deadline has passed. The 

Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to show good cause for the 

delay in service as to both Akbar and Houstead. 

 Pursuant to Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 

this suit is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE as to Keith Houstead and 

Ajmal Akbar. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: March 17, 2010 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:09-cv-02059-SC Document 63 Filed 03/17/10 Page 2 of 2