Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-01341/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-01341-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 365
Nature of Suit: Personal Injury - Product Liability
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Product Liability

---

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

DOROTHY L. CAMERON AND

HAROLD CAMERON,

Plaintiffs,

vs.

ASTRAZENECA

PHARMACEUTICALS, L.P, ET AL.

Defendants. ________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 06-01341 SBA

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

WHY CASE SHOULD NOT BE

DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO

SERVE

[DOCKET NO. 4]

On February 23, 2006, Plaintiffs Dorothy Cameron and Harold Cameron ("Plaintiffs") filed a

complaint against defendants Astrazeneca Pharmaceuticals L.P, Astrazeneca L.P., and Eli Lilly and

Company (collectively, "Defendants"). On June 16, 2006, Plaintiffs filed a Case Management

Conference Statement requesting the Court to continue the Case Management Conference, then

scheduled for June 29, 2006, for approximately120 days, 1) because Plaintiffs had not yet served

Defendants and 2) because this case falls within the purview of both Multidistrict Litigation Proceeding

No. 1596 - In re: Zyprexa Products Liability Litigation and Multidistrict Litigation Proceeding No. 1769

- In re: Seroquel Products Liability Litigation. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m),

Plaintiffs were required to serve Defendants within 120 days of the filing of the complaint, that is by

June 23, 2006. As of the date of this order, Plaintiffs have not served Defendants. Plaintiffs have not

shown good cause for their failure to serve. If service of the summons and complaint is not made upon

Defendant within 120 days of the filing of the complaint, the Court may dismiss the case without

prejudice after providing notice to Plaintiff. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). 

Accordingly, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

Case 4:06-cv-01341-SBA Document 7 Filed 06/29/06 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

(1) Plaintiffs and/or Plaintiffs' counsel of record shall appear in Courtroom 3 of the United

States Courthouse, 1301 Clay Street, Oakland, California, on July 5, 2006, at 4:00 p.m.

to show cause why the above-captioned case should not be dismissed without prejudice

for failure to serve the complaint on Defendant.

(2) No later than Monday, July 3, 2006, Plaintiffs or Plaintiffs' counsel of record must file

a Certificate of Counsel with the Clerk of the Court, to explain why the case should or

should not be dismissed for failure to serve. 

(3) Please take notice that this Order requires both the specified court appearance and the

filing of the Certificate of Counsel. FAILURE TO FULLY COMPLY WITH THIS

ORDER WILL BE DEEMED SUFFICIENT GROUNDS TO DISMISS THE ACTION.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT the Case Management Conference, currently scheduled for October

25, 2006 at 3:30 p.m., is VACATED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 6/28/06 _________________________________

Saundra Brown Armstrong 

United States District Judge

Case 4:06-cv-01341-SBA Document 7 Filed 06/29/06 Page 2 of 2