Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-01064/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-01064-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jonathan Daniel Douglas Elysee
Defendant
Juana Flores
Plaintiff
United States Postal Service
Defendant
United States of America
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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JUANA FLORES,

Plaintiff,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:24-cv-01064-KES-CDB

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

TO DISMISS DEFENDANT JONATHAN 

DANIEL DOUGLAS ELYSEE WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. 

P. 4(m)

(Docs. 4, 9, 11)

14-DAY OBJECTION PERIOD

Background

Plaintiff Juana Flores (“Plaintiff”) initiated this action with the filing of a complaint on 

September 5, 2024, against Defendants United States of America, United States Postal Service, and 

Jonathan Daniel Douglas Elysee (“Defendants”). (Doc. 1). The following day, the Clerk of the 

Court issued summonses and the Court entered an order setting a mandatory scheduling conference 

for December 2, 2024. (Docs. 4-6). The Court’s order directed Plaintiff to “diligently pursue 

service of summons and complaint” and “promptly file proofs of service.” (Doc. 6 at 1). The order 

further advised Plaintiff that failure to diligently prosecute this action “may result in the imposition 

of sanctions, including the dismissal of unserved defendants.” (Id.). On October 3, 2024, Plaintiff 

filed its first amended complaint. (Doc. 7).

On November 22, 2024, the Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause (“OSC”) within five days 

Case 1:24-cv-01064-KES-CDB Document 12 Filed 12/11/24 Page 1 of 5
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

of the entry of the order why sanctions should not be imposed for Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute 

and to serve the summonses and complaint in a timely manner. (Doc. 9). The Court’s order directed 

Plaintiff to effect service of this order and to promptly file proof of service thereof. (Id. at 2-3). 

The Court also continued the scheduling conference to January 30, 2025. (Id. at 2). The Court 

admonished Plaintiff that “[a]ny failure to timely respond to this order to show cause will result in 

the imposition of sanctions, up to and including a recommendation to dismiss [unserved Defendants 

or this action in its entirety].” (Id. at 2-3).

On November 27, 2024, Plaintiff timely filed return of service as to Defendants United 

States of America and United States Postal Service (“Government Defendants”). (Doc. 10). No 

return of service is filed as to Defendant Elysee. That same day, counsel for Plaintiff, Jonathan 

Bakhsheshian, timely filed his declaration in response to the OSC. (Doc. 11). Therein, counsel for 

Plaintiff declares that that on October 25, 2024, copies of the amended complaint were sent to 

counsel for Government Defendants, Brodie Butland, and attached their email exchange and prior 

discussions. (Id. at ¶¶ 6-7, Exes. 2, 3). Counsel for Plaintiff declares that on October 30, 2024, his 

wife gave birth to a son, and he has been on semi-paternity leave and away from the office. (Id. at 

¶ 8). Counsel for Plaintiff declares that he received notice of the OSC and came into his office to 

address this matter on November 27, 2024, and again emailed the amended complaint package to 

Counsel Butland, requesting acceptance of service on behalf of Government Defendants. (Id. at ¶¶ 

8-9, Ex. 4). Counsel Butland accepted service on November 27, 2024, and Government Defendants 

require a response to the amended complaint by January 27, 2025, barring any requests for an 

extension. (Id. at ¶ 10, Ex. 5).

Counsel for Plaintiff declares that he sent copies of the amended complaint “on rush order 

to serve Defendant Elysee at his last known address, an address that in the prior case [2:23-cv01296, which was dismissed due to lack of subject matter jurisdiction], he accepted service at.” 

(Id. at ¶ 11). Counsel for Plaintiff attests that he “anticipates Defendant Elysee to be served within 

7 days [e.g., not later than December 4, 2024], and all Answers on this matter to be filed no later 

than February 7, 2025.” (Id. at ¶ 12). Counsel for Plaintiff apologizes to this Court for the delay 

in this matter and would not have delayed “but for the birth of [his] son, and service would have 

Case 1:24-cv-01064-KES-CDB Document 12 Filed 12/11/24 Page 2 of 5
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

been effectuated earlier in November 2024.” (Id. at ¶ 13). Counsel for Plaintiff declares that 

sanctions should not be imposed “due to Plaintiff’s on-going due diligence in pursuing this matter[,] 

and [t]his matter should not be dismissed since it is apparent that all parties will be served within 7 

days, and this matter will proceed forward in early 2025.” (Id. at ¶¶ 14, 15).

Discussion

Local Rule 110 provides that “[f]ailure of counsel or of a party to comply with these Rules 

or with any order of the Court may be grounds for imposition by the Court of any and all 

sanctions...within the inherent power of the Court.” The Court has the inherent power to control 

its docket and may, in the exercise of that power, impose sanctions where appropriate, including 

dismissal of the action. Bautista v. Los Angeles County, 216 F.3d 837, 841 (9th Cir. 2000). 

In addition, Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides in pertinent part: 

“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). Absent a 

showing of good cause, failure to comply with Rule 4(m) requires dismissal of any unserved 

defendant. (Id.).

Here, Plaintiff’s response to the Court’s show cause order indicates they did not make 

attempts to timely effect service upon Defendant Elysee. Though Counsel for Plaintiff declared 

that he “anticipates Defendant Elysee to be served within 7 days” from the date he responded to 

the OSC on November 27, 2024—which represents service of Defendant Elysee to be completed 

by December 4, 2024—no proof of service has been filed to-date and Plaintiff otherwise has not 

reported to the Court why, if service has not been effective, any extension is warranted. Counsel 

for Plaintiff offers only the birth of his son as an explanation for delaying more than 90 days after 

issuance of the summons before attempting to effect service but, in the nearly three weeks since 

the Court’s show cause order, has offered no basis for finding good cause to excuse the 

continuing failure to timely effect service. Moreover, in the OSC entered on November 22, 2024, 

the Court took judicial notice that this is not the first instance counsel for Plaintiff Jonathan 

Bakhsheshian has been admonished about his failure to comply with the Court’s orders and Rule 

Case 1:24-cv-01064-KES-CDB Document 12 Filed 12/11/24 Page 3 of 5
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

4

4(m) in connection with effecting service of process. (Doc. 9 at 2); see Flores v. United States, et 

al., No. 1:23-cv-01742-KES-CDB (Doc. 9).

In the face of the Court’s previous admonishment, it appears counsel for Plaintiff

continues to disregard orders of the Court and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Accordingly, 

the imposition of sanctions appears particularly appropriate under these circumstances. On these 

facts, the undersigned recommends the Court exercises its broad discretion to decline to extend 

the time within which Plaintiff may effect service of process upon Defendant Jonathan Daniel 

Douglas Elysee.

Conclusion and Recommendation

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

1. Defendant Jonathan Daniel Douglas Elysee is dismissed without prejudice pursuant to 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m); and

2. The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to terminate Defendant Jonathan Daniel Douglas 

Elysee and update the docket accordingly.

These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge 

assigned to this case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 14 days after 

being served with a copy of these Findings and Recommendations, a party may file written 

objections with the Court. Local Rule 304(b). The document should be captioned, “Objections to 

Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations” and shall not exceed 15 pages without leave 

of Court and good cause shown. The Court will not consider exhibits attached to the Objections.

Remainder of This Page Intentionally Left Blank

Case 1:24-cv-01064-KES-CDB Document 12 Filed 12/11/24 Page 4 of 5
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

5

To the extent a party wishes to refer to any exhibit(s), the party should reference the exhibit 

in the record by its CM/ECF document and page number, when possible, or otherwise reference 

the exhibit with specificity. Any pages filed in excess of the 15-page limitation may be 

disregarded by the District Judge when reviewing these Findings and Recommendations under 

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l)(C). A party’s failure to file any objections within the specified time may 

result in the waiver of certain rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 

2014).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 11, 2024 ___________________ _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:24-cv-01064-KES-CDB Document 12 Filed 12/11/24 Page 5 of 5