Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-03378/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-03378-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 365
Nature of Suit: Personal Injury - Product Liability
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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 Californi

a

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

KRISTIAN M. GERMANI, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

STATE FARM INSURANCE COMPANY, 

et al., 

Defendants. 

Case No. 14-cv-03378-EDL 

ORDER DISMISSING CASE 

 On December 24, 2014, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause, stating that Plaintiff did 

not appear to have served any Defendants within the time frame required by Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 4(m) despite having been granted a continuance of the case management conference in 

order to do so. The Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause no later than January 5, 2015 as to why 

this case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. 

On December 31, 2014, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Request of Production of Documents 

(docket no. 13) and a “Motion Requesting Issuance of Two Respondents The City and Mr. 

Younger.” Plaintiff also filed a Motion for Entry of Default, which was declined by the Clerk’s 

Office. While Plaintiff did not file a specific response to the Court’s Order to Show Cause and 

there was no indication that she had served any Defendants, the Court construed the “Motion 

Requesting Issuance of Two Respondents The City and Mr. Younger” as a response to the Order 

to Show Cause on the question of service of the complaint. 

In a January 21, 2015 Order, the Court concluded that the “Motion Requesting Issuance of 

Two Respondents The City and Mr. Younger” was a request that the Court order the United States 

Marshal’s Office to serve the summons and complaint on these Defendants pursuant to Federal 

Rule of Civil Procedure 4(c)(3). The Court found that Plaintiff had not shown that she was 

entitled to relief under Rule 4(c)(3), but that even if Plaintiff had made a showing to support relief 

Case 3:14-cv-03378-EDL Document 20 Filed 02/17/15 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 Californi

a

under Rule 4(c)(3), the time period to serve Defendants had passed, and she had not shown good 

cause under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) to extend the time to serve Defendants. The 

Court ordered Plaintiff to show good cause as to why this case should not be dismissed for failure 

to serve the complaint, and warned Plaintiff that the Court would not necessarily excuse any 

missed deadlines. 

 On February 3, 2015, Plaintiff timely filed an “Order in Compliance with Court’s Order 

and Motion to Proceed.” While this document would adequately support Plaintiff’s request for 

service under Rule 4(c)(3) based on the fact that she would qualify for in forma pauperis relief, 

Plaintiff did not show good cause as to her failure to serve the summons and complaint on 

Defendants during the time limit contained in Rule 4(m). Thus, Plaintiff’s case is dismissed 

without prejudice. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: February 17, 2015 

______________________________________ 

ELIZABETH D. LAPORTE 

United States Magistrate Judge 

Case 3:14-cv-03378-EDL Document 20 Filed 02/17/15 Page 2 of 2