Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-00563/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-00563-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
American Savings Network, Inc.
Defendant
American Savings Network, LLC
Defendant
James B. Carr
Plaintiff
Anthony Diehl
Defendant
Roger S. Moran
Defendant
Phyllis L. York
Plaintiff

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PHYLLIS L. YORK, and JAMES B. 

CARR,

Plaintiffs,

v.

AMERICAN SAVINGS NETWORK, 

INC. also known as AMERICAN 

SAVINGS NETWORK, LLC; ANTHONY 

DIEHL; and ROGER S. MORAN,

Defendants.

No. 2:15-cv-00563-GEB-DAD

ORDER CONTINUING STATUS 

(PRETRIAL SCHEDULING) 

CONFERENCE; FED. R. CIV. P. 4(M) 

NOTICE

Plaintiffs state in their Status Report filed August 5, 

2015: 

Defendant Anthony Diehl has been evading 

service of process, is aware of the pending 

lawsuit but has refused to accept service, 

and has stated he will not appear. He has 

indicated that he is in Mexico [until August 

4th] and has refused to participate or appear 

in this lawsuit.

The Plaintiffs request that the Court 

enter an order permitting service by mail on 

Defendant Anthony Diehl.

(Id. at 2:10-16 (citation omitted); see also Affs. Due Diligence, 

ECF No. 18.)

Case 2:15-cv-00563-KJM-DB Document 20 Filed 08/21/15 Page 1 of 3
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

In light of Plaintiffs’ service representations and the 

affidavits of diligence filed on July 28, 2015, Plaintiffs are 

granted an extension under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

(“Rule”) 4(m) to effectuate service on Defendant Anthony Diehl 

until and including September 30, 2015. Plaintiffs are notified 

under Rule 4(m) that failure to serve Defendant Anthony Diehl 

with process by that date may result in his dismissal for failure 

of service and/or prosecution. To avoid dismissal, on or before 

October 2, 2015, Plaintiffs shall file proof of service or a 

filing providing sufficient explanation why service was not 

completed within the extended service period.

The Court declines to reach Plaintiffs’ request for “an 

order permitting service by mail on Defendant Anthony Diehl” 

since Plaintiffs have shown neither that they are entitled to

such an order, nor that such an order is necessary to effectuate 

service of process. See, e.g., Cal. Code Civ. P. ' 415.40 (“A 

summons may be served on a person outside this state . . . by 

sending a copy of the summons and of the complaint to the person 

to be served by first-class mail, postage prepaid, requiring a 

return receipt.”); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(e) (“[A]n 

individual . . . may be served in a judicial district of the 

United States by . . . following state law for serving a summons 

in an action brought in courts of general jurisdiction in the 

state where the district court is located . . . .”).

Further, the status conference scheduled for hearing on 

August 31, 2015, is continued to commence at 9:00 a.m. on 

November 9, 2015. A status report shall be filed no later than 

fourteen (14) days prior to the Status Conference, in which 

Case 2:15-cv-00563-KJM-DB Document 20 Filed 08/21/15 Page 2 of 3
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

Plaintiffs shall address all pertinent subjects set forth in 

Local Rule 240(a). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 20, 2015

Case 2:15-cv-00563-KJM-DB Document 20 Filed 08/21/15 Page 3 of 3