Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_14-cv-04066/USCOURTS-cand-4_14-cv-04066-3/pdf.json

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

---

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

VICTOR PALACIOS,

Plaintiff,

v.

COSCO HOME AND OFFICE 

PRODUCTS, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 14-cv-04066-KAW 

ORDER DISCHARGING ORDER TO 

SHOW CAUSE

Re: Dkt. No. 41

On September 2, 2015, the Court ordered Plaintiff Victor Palacios to show cause why the 

Court should not dismiss this case against the named defendants, other than Ameriwood 

Industries, who has voluntarily appeared, as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m). 

Plaintiff was to file a written response within 14 days. (Order to Show Cause, Dkt. No. 41.)

Plaintiff timely filed a written response.1 The response includes a declaration from 

Plaintiff's counsel, in which he attempts to justify the failure to timely serve the defendants named 

in the complaint, a memorandum of points and authorities in support of his request for an 

extension of time in which to serve the summons and complaint, copies of various corporate 

documents, and an affidavit of service indicating that Dorel Juvenile Group, Inc. was served with 

the summons and complaint on September 8, 2015. (Pl.'s Response, Dkt. No. 43.)

In the declaration, Plaintiff's counsel indicates that he "does not object to the Court 

dismissing Dorel, Inc.2or the now nonexistent corporation, Cosco, Inc. erroneously named in the 

 

1

Plaintiff then filed a "Supplemental Declaration of J. Michael Brown in Response to Order to 

Show Cause," which is apparently identical to the original filing with the exception of specific 

citations that were previously omitted. As the supplemental was filed on September 18, 2015, 

after the response deadline, the Court has not considered that additional filing here. 

2

Plaintiff's counsel asks that the action not be dismissed as against Dorel Juvenile Group, Inc., and 

Case 4:14-cv-04066-KAW Document 46 Filed 09/25/15 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

complaint as Cosco Home and Office Products Inc." (Id. at 5.) He requests that the action not be 

dismissed as against Dorel Juvenile Group, Inc. (Id.) He states that he obtained a summons from 

the Clerk and transmitted the summons and other necessary documents to a process server who

served Dorel Juvenile Group, Inc. on September 8, 2015. (Id.) Plaintiff's counsel has included an 

affidavit of service but he has not filed the original proof of service with the Court because he

"ha[s] been out of [his] office traveling to North Carolina in [sic] the Washington DC area since 

September 10, 2015, and will not return to [his] office until September 23, 2015." (Pl.'s Response 

at 4.)

In light of the above and pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m), this action is 

dismissed without prejudice as to all defendants except Dorel Juvenile Group Inc. and Ameriwood 

Industries. The order to show cause is DISCHARGED. To the extent Plaintiff wishes to seek an 

extension of the Rule 4(m) deadline, he shall file a properly noticed motion. The Court, however, 

warns Plaintiff that he has not made the requisite showing of good cause here, as claiming to need 

certain information from Defendants does not excuse Plaintiff's obligation to timely serve the 

parties he has elected to sue in this case. Plaintiff is also on notice that the Court will entertain a 

motion for sanctions if he continues to delay the prosecution of this action. If and when such 

motion is brought, Defendant Ameriwood Industries may advance any relevant arguments at that 

time. For this reason, Ameriwood's "Opposition to Plaintiff's Response to Order to Show Cause," 

Dkt. No. 45, has not been considered here.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 09/25/2015

__________________________________

KANDIS A. WESTMORE

United States Magistrate Judge

 

he does not object to the Court dismissing Dorel, Inc. Aside from Dorel Juvenile Group, Inc., the 

only other Dorel entity is Dorel Industries, Inc. The Court therefore presumes that when Plaintiff's 

counsel states that he "does not object to the Court dismissing Dorel, Inc.[,]" he means that he 

does not object to the dismissal of Dorel Industries, Inc.

Case 4:14-cv-04066-KAW Document 46 Filed 09/25/15 Page 2 of 2