Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-05183/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-05183-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Zakariah LaFreniere
Plaintiff
Trustees of the California State University
Defendant

Document Text:

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ZAKARIAH LAFRENIERE,

Plaintiff,

 v.

TRUSTEES OF CALIFORNIA,

Defendant. /

No. C 04-05183 JSW

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

On March 21, 2005, Plaintiff moved for default judgment pursuant to Rule 55(b)(2)

against defendants Trustees of the California State University. After reviewing the record and

Plaintiff’s motion for default judgment, the Court found that Plaintiff had failed to comply with

Rule 55 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and denied the motion without prejudice. 

On April 22, 2005, Plaintiff again moved for default judgment pursuant to Rule 55(b)(2)

against defendants Trustees of the California State University, and noticed his motion for

Friday, May 6, 2005. Again, after reviewing the record, the Court found that Plaintiff had failed

to comply with Rule 55 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

For a third time, on August 10, 2005, Plaintiff moved ex parte for “status of default

judgment” and noticed his motion for September 5, 2005. Once again, the Court finds that

Plaintiff has failed to comply with Rule 55 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

Case 3:04-cv-05183-JSW Document 26 Filed 06/22/06 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

Specifically, Plaintiff moved for default judgment without first requesting and obtaining entry

of Defendants’ default from the clerk pursuant to Rule 55(a). On April 29, 2005, the clerk

declined to enter default because Plaintiff had failed to serve defendants properly. Having

failed to perfect service, defendants have not been given an opportunity to respond in this action

and default is inappropriate.

Once again, on August 11, 2005, the Court denied Plaintiff’s motion for default

judgment. Plaintiff subsequently appealed that decision, which appeal was denied for lack of

jurisdiction. 

The Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to effect proper service on defendants. The

original complaint was filed on December 7, 2004. Far in excess of the 120 days provided for

service has elapsed. See Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m). Having numerous times

instructed Plaintiff to serve defendants, the Court finds it proper at this juncture to dismiss this

action in its entirety without prejudice.

The Clerk shall close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 22, 2006 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:04-cv-05183-JSW Document 26 Filed 06/22/06 Page 2 of 2