Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-00578/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-00578-16/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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PATENT TECHNOLOGY, LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

LAWRENCE WOODMAN, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 15-cv-00578-DMR 

ORDER DISMISSING CASE FOR 

FAILURE TO PROSECUTE

Plaintiff Patent Technology, LLC filed this matter in February 2015. On August 25, 2016, 

the court granted Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a third amended complaint. [Docket No. 109.] 

The court ordered Plaintiff to file its third amended complaint by September 8, 2016 and ordered 

Plaintiff to complete service on Defendants within 90 days after filing “[g]iven Plaintiff’s delays 

in prosecuting the case.” Id. Plaintiff filed its third amended complaint on September 8, 2016 

(Docket No. 110); therefore, the deadline for service was December 7, 2016. No proof of service 

of the third amended complaint on any of the defendants has been filed. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 

4(l)(1) (“[u]nless service is waived, proof of service must be made to the court.”). 

Plaintiff has been given ample opportunity to obtain information about Defendants in order 

to serve them with the operative complaint. In light of Plaintiff’s failure to serve the third 

amended complaint by the deadline set by the court, this matter is dismissed for failure to 

prosecute.1

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 5, 2017

______________________________________

Donna M. Ryu

United States Magistrate Judge

 

1

The court notes that on January 4, 2017, nearly one month after the deadline for service had 

passed, Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to serve Defendant Mr. McCandles by email. [Docket 

No. 121.] In light of the court’s dismissal, the motion is denied as moot.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORN

I

A

IT IS SO ORDERED

Judge Donna M. Ryu

Case 4:15-cv-00578-DMR Document 122 Filed 01/05/17 Page 1 of 1