Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_14-cv-02388/USCOURTS-cand-5_14-cv-02388-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question: Personal Injury

---

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

SAN JOSE DIVISION

CHARLES WANG,

Plaintiff,

v.

TAYLOR THOMSON, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 14-cv-02388-BLF 

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AS TO 

WHY THIS ACTION SHOULD NOT BE

DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO SERVE 

REMAINING DEFENDANTS

On October 9, 2014, Plaintiff filed an amended Complaint (“FAC”) in the above-captioned 

action, naming as Defendants Taylor Thomson, D. Systrom, Dr. Hesse, Dr. Rhee, Dr. Matola, Dr. 

Madoff, and Frances West, along with Massachusetts General Hospital (as “Mass General 

Hospital”) and “MGH Attending ICU medical physicians and staff.” See FAC, ECF 32 at 1. 

Defendant Massachusetts General Hospital moved to dismiss for lack of personal 

jurisdiction, which the Court granted, with prejudice, on December 19, 2014. On January 16, 

2015, despite no judgment being issued by the Court in this case, Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal 

of the Court’s Order dismissing Defendant Massachusetts General Hospital. See ECF 44. 

A review of the electronic filings in this action shows that Plaintiff has not served his FAC 

on any of the remaining defendants. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) requires that a party be 

served within 120 days of the filing of the operative complaint:

If a defendant is not served within 120 days after the complaint is 

filed, the court—on motion or on its own after notice to the 

plaintiff—must dismiss the action without prejudice against that 

defendant or order that service be made within a specified time. But 

if the plaintiff shows good cause for the failure, the court must

extend the time for service for an appropriate period.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m) (emphasis added).

Case 5:14-cv-02388-BLF Document 46 Filed 02/09/15 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

Northern District of California

The Court HEREBY ORDERS Plaintiff to (1) provide a showing that he has effected 

service on the individual defendants in this action prior to February 6, 2015, 120 days from the 

date he filed his FAC, or (2) show cause as to why his failure to serve the individual defendants 

should be excused, and why the Court should extend time for him to effect service. 

Plaintiff’s response shall be limited to five (5) pages, and shall be due to the Court no later 

than March 9, 2015. If Plaintiff fails to respond, the Court shall issue an order dismissing this 

action against the individual defendants. See Cabellero v. Gonzalez, 2009 WL 3876293, at *2 

(dismissing an action without prejudice when Plaintiff failed to respond to the Court’s order to 

show cause regarding his failure to serve the individual defendants). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 9, 2015

______________________________________

BETH LABSON FREEMAN

United States District Judge

Case 5:14-cv-02388-BLF Document 46 Filed 02/09/15 Page 2 of 2