Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-03457/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-03457-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 446
Nature of Suit: Americans with Disabilities Act - Other
Cause of Action: 42:12101 Americans w/ Disabilities Act (ADA)

---

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

ROBERT MCCARTHY,

Plaintiff,

v.

LEONARD T. NASH, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 15-cv-03457-JST 

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

This Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) case is subject to the case-management 

deadlines set forth in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and this district’s General Order 56. 

Plaintiff Robert McCarthy filed his Complaint on July 28, 2015. ECF No. 1. On the same date, 

the Court issued an Initial Case Management Scheduling Order for Cases Asserting Denial of 

Right of Access under Americans with Disabilities Act. ECF No. 5. That order set a variety of 

deadlines, including September 28, 2015 as the last day for plaintiff to complete service on 

defendants. Id. Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure required service on all 

defendants by November 25, 2016.1 See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). No Defendant has appeared in the 

case, and Plaintiff has not shown good cause for his failure to serve Defendants. 

Pursuant to Rule 4(m), the Court ORDERS PLAINTIFF TO SHOW CAUSE in writing by 

April 20, 2016 why this action should not dismissed without prejudice for his failure to prosecute. 

 

1

The version of Rule 4(m) in effect when Plaintiff’s Complaint was filed stated: 

Time Limit for Service. If service of the summons and complaint is 

not made upon a defendant within 120 days after the filing of the 

complaint, the court, upon motion or on its own initiative after 

notice to the plaintiff, shall dismiss the action without prejudice as 

to that defendant or direct that service be effected within a specified 

time; provided that if the plaintiff shows good cause for the failure, 

the court shall extend the time for service for an appropriate period.

Case 3:15-cv-03457-JST Document 15 Filed 04/12/16 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 response must also include any request for a change in the Scheduling Order at ECF No. 5

and discuss Plaintiff’s plan for proceeding in the case. The Court will conduct a hearing on this 

Order to Show Cause on April 28, 2016 at 2:00 p.m. Plaintiff’s counsel is required to be 

personally present. If no written response is received by April 20, 2016, the case will be 

dismissed. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: April 12, 2016

______________________________________

JON S. TIGAR

United States District Judge

Case 3:15-cv-03457-JST Document 15 Filed 04/12/16 Page 2 of 2