Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-00686/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-00686-9/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Javier Solis
Plaintiff
Target Corporation
Defendant

Document Text:

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 

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

JAVIER SOLIS, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

TARGET CORPORATION, a corporation, 

and DOES 1-100, inclusive, 

Defendants. 

No. 2:14-cv-00686-KJM-AC 

ORDER 

On May 5, 2016, the court ordered plaintiff to show cause why the court should 

not dismiss the “Doe” defendants. ECF No. 77. Plaintiff has not responded to the court’s order. 

The court construes plaintiff’s lack of response as a concession, and therefore DISMISSES the 

unnamed defendants under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m). See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m) 

(providing for dismissal of defendants not served within ninety days of filing of the complaint 

unless the plaintiff shows good cause); see also Glass v. Fields, No. 1:09-00098, 2011 U.S. Dist. 

LEXIS 97604 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 31, 2011); Hard Drive Prods. v. Does, No. 11-01567, 2011 U.S. 

Dist. LEXIS 109837, at *2–4 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 27, 2011).

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: June 7, 2016 

Case 2:14-cv-00686-KJM-DB Document 80 Filed 06/07/16 Page 1 of 1