Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_07-cv-05733/USCOURTS-cand-5_07-cv-05733-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 710
Nature of Suit: Fair Labor Standards Act
Cause of Action: 29:201 Fair Labor Standards Act

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

Andres Villanueva,

Plaintiff,

 v.

Mis Amigos Meat Market, et al.,

Defendants. /

NO. C 07-05733 JW 

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT

PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 4(m)

On November 13, 2007, Plaintiff filed a Complaint against Defendants. (Docket Item No. 1.) 

The Court had set a Case Management Conference for April 7, 2008 . Plaintiff failed to file a Case

Management Statement in accordance with the Civil Local Rules. The docket reflected that Plaintiff

had yet to serve Defendants. On April 4, 2008, the Court vacated the conference and set a hearing

on an Order to Show Cause re: Dismissal Under Rule 4(m). (See Docket Item No. 4.) The Order

required Plaintiff to file a certification by April 18, 2008 to explain why this case should not be

dismissed for failure to serve Defendants in accordance with Rule 4(m). The Order stated: “If

Plaintiff fails to file the certification by April 18, 2008, the Show Cause hearing will be vacated

automatically and the case will be dismissed pursuant to Rule 4(m).” The Order also warned: 

“Failure to comply with any part of this Order will be deemed sufficient grounds to dismiss this

action.” To date, Plaintiff has failed to file any certification with the Court.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) provides: “If a defendant is not served within 120 days

after the complaint is filed, the court . . . must dismiss the action without prejudice against that

Case 5:07-cv-05733-JW Document 5 Filed 04/22/08 Page 1 of 3
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

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). Here, Plaintiff filed the Complaint on November 13, 2007. Thus, Plaintiff should

have served Defendants by March 12, 2008. To date, no certificate of service has been filed with

respect to any of the Defendants. In addition, Plaintiff has failed to file any request for extension of

time for service. Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES this action pursuant to Rule 4(m).

In light of this Order, the hearing presently scheduled for April 28, 2008 is VACATED.

The Clerk shall close this file.

Dated: April 22, 2008 

JAMES WARE

United States District Judge

Case 5:07-cv-05733-JW Document 5 Filed 04/22/08 Page 2 of 3
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

THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT COPIES OF THIS ORDER HAVE BEEN DELIVERED TO:

Adam Wang waqw@sbcglobal.net

Dated: April 22, 2008 Richard W. Wieking, Clerk

By: /s/ JW Chambers 

Elizabeth Garcia

Courtroom Deputy

Case 5:07-cv-05733-JW Document 5 Filed 04/22/08 Page 3 of 3