Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-02664/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-02664-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Karen Singh
Plaintiff
Raj Singh
Plaintiff
Wells Fargo Bank
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 

RAJ SINGH, KAREN SINGH, 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

WELLS FARGO BANK, 

Defendant. 

No. 2:15-cv-2664-JAM-EFB PS 

ORDER 

 On May 19, 2016, plaintiffs were ordered to show cause why this case should not be 

dismissed for failure to effect service of process within the time prescribed by Federal Rule of 

Civil Procedure 4(m).1 In response to the court’s order, plaintiffs submitted a proof of service, 

indicating that on January 10, 2016, non-party Jason Smith delivered a copy of the summons and 

complaint to John Stumpf, the president and CEO of Wells Fargo Bank, and Mr. Strumpf’s 

assistant at 420 Montgomery Street, San Francisco, California. ECF No. 6 at 2. 

 Local Rule 210 provides that where “service of process is not waived, proof of service of 

process shall be made by acknowledgment of the party served or by affidavit of the person 

serving such process.” E.D. Cal. L.R. 210(b). That rule further provides that “[w]hen service is 

made by personal delivery, it shall show the hour, the particular address or vicinity at which 

 1

 At the time of that order, defendant Wells Fargo Bank had not made an appearance and 

the docket did not reflect that defendant had been properly served. 

Case 2:15-cv-02664-JAM-EFB Document 10 Filed 07/01/16 Page 1 of 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 

2

service was made, the name and address of the person served, and the name and address of the 

person making the service.” Id.; see Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(l). 

 The submitted proof of service fails to satisfy the requirements of Local Rule 210. 

Although it identifies the address where service was purportedly made, it does not include the 

hour for service, nor does it provide the names of all persons served. While it states that Jason 

Smith delivered a copy of the summons and complaint to “John Stumpf, who is President and 

CEO of wells fargo Bank [sic], and his assistant (ECF No. 6 at 2), it is not clear whether a copy of 

the summons and complaint was personally delivered to Mr. Strumpf, or whether the documents 

were merely left with some other person. If they were indeed left with an assistant or other 

person, the proof of service must identify that person’s name. Furthermore, the proof of service 

does not contain the address of Jason Smith, the individual that purportedly served defendant. 

 Accordingly, plaintiffs have failed to adequately demonstrate that defendant was properly 

served. Plaintiffs are therefore order to appear before the court on August 3, 2016, at 10:00 a.m. 

in Courtroom 8, to show cause why this action should not be dismissed for failure to effect 

service of process in the time proscribed by Rule 4(m) and/or failure to comply with the court’s 

local rules. 

DATED: July 1, 2016. 

 

Case 2:15-cv-02664-JAM-EFB Document 10 Filed 07/01/16 Page 2 of 2