Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-01667/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-01667-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 160
Nature of Suit: Stockholder's Suits
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity - Stockholders Suits

---

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

06cv1667

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FRED YOUNG, an individual, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

ACTIONS SEMICONDUCTOR CO.,

LTD., a Republic of Mauritius Company,

et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No. 06cv1667-L(AJB)

ORDER CONTINUING ORDER TO

SHOW CAUSE HEARING RE: WHY

THIS ACTION SHOULD NOT BE

DISMISSED AS TO DEFENDANT

ACTIONS SEMICONDUCTOR CO.,

LTD., A REPUBLIC OF MAURITIUS

COMPANY

On February 12, 2007, the court issued an order to show cause why this action should not

be dismissed as to Defendants Nan-Horng Yeh (“Yeh”) and Actions Semiconductor Co., Ltd., a

Republic of Mauritius company (Actions Mauritius”). For the reasons which follow, the order to

show cause hearing is CONTINUED from August 20, 2007 to February 25, 2008 at 10:30 a.m.

This breach of contract and fraud action was filed on August 18, 2006 against three

foreign Defendants: Actions Mauritius, Actions Semiconductor Co., Ltd., a Cayman Islands

company (“Actions Caymans”) and Yeh. By voluntary dismissal filed August 14, 2007,

Plaintiffs dismissed all claims against Yeh. To date, Plaintiffs have not effected service on

Actions Mauritius. 

On September 29, 2006, Plaintiffs filed an ex parte application for a letter rogatory to

effect service on Actions Mauritius. The court issued the letter rogatory on October 11, 2006. 

On January 26, 2007, the court issued an order to show cause re: dismissal for failure to serve. 

Case 3:06-cv-01667-MMA-AJB Document 86 Filed 08/17/07 Page 1 of 4
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 06cv1667

Because Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m), which requires service of summons and

complaint within 120 days after filing the complaint, does not apply to service abroad, and

because Plaintiffs made a showing regarding their efforts to serve Actions Mauritius abroad the

order to show hearing, set for February 20, 2007, was continued to August 20, 2007. Based on

all information provided by Plaintiffs in their application for the letter rogatory and in

preparation for the February 20 hearing, ten months appeared a sufficient time for service. The

court warned Plaintiffs it was not inclined to extend the time again. 

On July 10, 2007, nine months after the letter rogatory was issued, Plaintiffs applied to

the court to re-issue the letter rogatory because the service address had apparently changed. 

Service on Actions Mauritius was attempted to March 27, 2007 but was unsuccessful because

the agent for service of process was no longer at the same address. Although the court re-issued

the letter rogatory on July 30, 2007, it instructed Plaintiffs to provide an explanation why they

did not sooner become aware of the problems with service. In the declaration of William

Caldarelli, filed August 1, 2007, Plaintiffs explained the convoluted process and time line of

effecting service in Mauritius from authentication of the letter rogatory by the United States

Department of State, its transmittals through the diplomatic channels, to the appointment of

counsel in Mauritius to apply to the local supreme court for leave to serve process. When

service was finally attempted on March 27, 2007, it was unsuccessful, as reflected in the return

of service filed in Mauritius on April 24, 2007. The report of the unsuccessful service was not

directly communicated to Plaintiffs, but traveled back to them through the same diplomatic

channels. Plaintiffs’ counsel received the news on June 20, 2007. Plaintiffs inquired about the

new address for service and contacted directly the attorney assigned to the case by the supreme

court of Mauritius with a request to apply for service at the new address. They were informed

that this was not possible, and they had to start the process all over again with a new letter

rogatory.

Accordingly, Plaintiffs therefore request additional time for service on Actions Mauritius

through the same channel. It appears Plaintiffs learned a lesson in their first attempt to serve. 

While they worded the initial letter rogatory as, “The Court respectfully requests that you cause

Case 3:06-cv-01667-MMA-AJB Document 86 Filed 08/17/07 Page 2 of 4
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

3 06cv1667

one copy of the attached documents . . . to be served . . . at the above described address,.” the

new letter rogatory identifies two addresses and makes a broader request: “The Court

respectfully requests that you cause one copy of the attached documents . . . to be served . . . at

the above described addresses, or any other address shown in the official company register at

the time of the attempted service . . ..” (Emphasis added.) In addition, Plaintiffs are attempting

to effect service though alternative methods. 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not set a time limit for service of process abroad.

Lucas v. Natoli, 936 F.2d 432, 433 (9th Cir. 1991). Nevertheless, the time to serve is not

boundless. The court retains authority to dismiss a case for failure to prosecute pursuant to Rule

41(b). William W. Schwartzer, A. Wallace Tashima & James M. Wagstaffe, Federal Civil

Procedure Before Trial ¶ 5:259.1 (Rutter Group 2007). Rule 41(b) provides in pertinent part:

For failure of the plaintiff to prosecute or to comply with these rules or any order

of the court, a defendant may move for dismissal of an action or of any claim

against the defendant.

The court has inherent power to dismiss sua sponte "to achieve the orderly and expeditious

disposition of cases.” Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630-632 (1962); Oliva v. Sullivan,

958 F.2d 272, 273 (9th Cir. 1992). Dismissal for failure to prosecute is within the court's

discretion. 

Although it appears that the failure of service may have been prevented if Plaintiffs

included the broader wording in their initial letter rogatory or attempted simultaneously to serve

by other methods, it does not appear that they failed to prosecute the case or follow any court

orders. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ request for more time to effect

service is granted. For the foregoing reasons, the order to show cause hearing is CONTINUED

from August 20, 2007 to February 25, 2008 at 10:30 a.m. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: August 17, 2007

M. James Lorenz

United States District Court Judge

Case 3:06-cv-01667-MMA-AJB Document 86 Filed 08/17/07 Page 3 of 4
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

4 06cv1667

COPY TO: 

HON. ANTHONY J. BATTAGLIA

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

ALL PARTIES/COUNSEL

Case 3:06-cv-01667-MMA-AJB Document 86 Filed 08/17/07 Page 4 of 4