Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_17-cv-06618/USCOURTS-cand-5_17-cv-06618-0/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

SAN JOSE DIVISION

RICHARD JOHNSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

MICHAEL HUNGCHING TAO, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.17-cv-06618-VKD 

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THIS 

CASE SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED

On November 16, 2017, plaintiff Richard Johnson filed this action against defendant 

Michael Hungching Tao and “Does 1-10.” A few months later, Mr. Johnson voluntarily dismissed 

Mr. Tao and filed an amended complaint naming Robin (Te) Press in place of Doe defendant 

number 1. Dkt. No. 14. Mr. Johnson having demonstrated that a number of (unsuccessful) service 

attempts were made (Dkt. No. 18), the Court subsequently granted his request for an extension of 

time to serve defendant Press. Dkt. No. 19. Mr. Johnson was given until June 15, 2018 to 

complete service. If he did not serve the complaint and summons by that date, then Mr. Johnson 

was ordered to file a status report by June 15, 2018. Id.

The docket does not indicate that service has been completed as to any defendant. Instead, 

in a June 11, 2018 status report, Mr. Johnson says he “recently discovered the identify [sic] of the 

owner of the subject property and has filed a Doe Amendment substituting the name of defendant 

Los Altos Office Center Corporation, Inc. as Doe 2,” and further states that he “anticipates 

completing service within 21-30 days.” Dkt. No. 23. This report was followed by the filing of a 

Second Amended Complaint purporting to add Los Altos Office Center Corporation, Inc. as a 

defendant.

Case 5:17-cv-06618-VKD Document 26 Filed 06/28/18 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

“If a defendant is not served within 90 days after the complaint is filed, the court—on 

motion or on its own after notice to the plaintiff—must dismiss the action without prejudice 

against that defendant or order that service be made within a specified time.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). 

The service deadline will be extended upon a showing of good cause. Id.

In the present action, the 90-day deadline for completing service has long since passed, and 

the extended June 15, 2018 deadline for completing service as to defendant Press has also lapsed. 

Mr. Johnson’s June 11, 2018 status report does not adequately explain or establish good cause for 

the failure to timely effect service.

Accordingly, Mr. Johnson’s attorney, Monica Castillo, is directed to file a written response 

to this order by Friday, July 6, 2018 and to appear before this Court on July 10, 2018, 10:00 a.m.

in Courtroom 2 on the Fifth Floor of the United States District Court, 280 South First Street, San 

Jose, California and show cause why this action should not be dismissed, without prejudice, for 

failure to timely complete service of process.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 28, 2018

VIRGINIA K. DEMARCHI

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:17-cv-06618-VKD Document 26 Filed 06/28/18 Page 2 of 2