Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_11-cv-03201/USCOURTS-cand-3_11-cv-03201-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights 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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Northern District of California

TOM MCMILLIN,

Plaintiff,

v.

FOSTER CITY, et al.,

Defendants.

_____________________________________/

No. C 11-3201 MEJ

ORDER RE: SERVICE

ORDER CONTINUING CMC

On September 30, 2011, Plaintiff Tom McMillin filed a Status Report, indicating that

although the Complaint and Summons in this case were sent out for service “almost immediately”

after he filed the Complaint, he subsequently learned that the process server used was no longer

licensed and had misrepresented his status as a licensed process server in San Mateo County to

Plaintiff’s counsel. Dkt. No. 4. Plaintiff stated that the Complaint and Summons were transmitted to

a different, licensed/bonded service entity, and that all named defendants should be served in the next

five to seven days. Id. Based on Plaintiff’s representations, the Court continued the Case 

Management Conference to December 8, 2011. Dkt. No. 6.

It has now been over 60 days since Plaintiff stated that all defendants would be served, and

over 150 days since he filed his Complaint, yet there is still no indication that any defendants have

been served. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m), “[i]f a defendant is not served within

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

that defendant or order that service be made within a specified time.” Further, Plaintiff has failed to

file any type of case management statement ahead of the December 8 Case Management Conference,

which is in violation of the Court’s October 3, 2011 Order. Dkt. No. 6.

Accordingly, the Court hereby ORDERS Plaintiff to complete service of process by

Case 3:11-cv-03201-WHA Document 7 Filed 12/02/11 Page 1 of 2
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

UNITED 

STATES 

DISTRICT 

COURT

For the Northern District of California

December 15, 2011. Failure to complete service by this time without good cause shown shall result

in dismissal of all defendants not yet served. The Case Management Conference is CONTINUED to

January 19, 2012 at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom B, 15th Floor, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco,

California. The parties’ joint case management statement shall be filed by January 12, 2012. Failure

to comply with this Order may result in the imposition of sanctions, including and up to dismissal of

this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 2, 2011 _______________________________

Maria-Elena James 

Chief United States Magistrate Judge 

Case 3:11-cv-03201-WHA Document 7 Filed 12/02/11 Page 2 of 2