Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00340/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00340-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Martin Bans
Defendant
Edubiges Lopez
Plaintiff

Document Text:

1

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

On February 23, 2016, Plaintiff filed this action. (Doc. 1) The same day, the Court issued the

summonses (Docs. 4, 5) and its order setting the mandatory scheduling conference. (Doc. 6) More 

than a month later, Plaintiff filed the first amended complaint. (Doc. 8) The Court has reminded 

Plaintiff of the obligation to serve the summons and complaint in a timely fashion, but this has not 

occurred. In its order setting the mandatory scheduling conference, the Court advised:

The Court is unable to conduct a scheduling conference until defendants have been 

served with the summons and complaint. Accordingly, plaintiff(s) shall diligently 

pursue service of summons and complaint and dismiss those defendants against whom 

plaintiff(s) will not pursue claims. Plaintiff(s) shall promptly file proofs of service of 

the summons and complaint so the Court has a record of service. Counsel are referred 

to F.R.Civ.P., Rule 4 regarding the requirement of timely service of the complaint. 

Failure to timely serve summons and complaint may result in the imposition of 

sanctions, including the dismissal of unserved defendants.

(Doc. 6 at 1-2, emphasis added) Notably, Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m) reads, 

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 

EDUBIGES LOPEZ,

 Plaintiff,

v.

MARTIN BANS,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:16-cv-00340 DAD JLT 

ORDER TO PLAINTIFF TO SHOW CAUSE WHY 

THE MATTER SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED

ORDER CONTINUING SCHEDULING 

CONFERENCE

Case 1:16-cv-00340-DAD-JLT Document 6 Filed 04/28/16 Page 1 of 2
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

prejudice against that defendant or order that service be made within a specified time. 

But if the plaintiff shows good cause for the failure, the court must extend the time for 

service for an appropriate period.

Therefore, the Court ORDERS,

1. Within 14 days, Plaintiff SHALL show cause in writing why this matter should not be 

dismissed for failure to comply with Rule 4 and the orders of this Court and for her failure to 

prosecute this action;

2. The scheduling conference, currently set on May 11, 2016, is continued to June 23, 

2016 at 10:00 a.m. at the United States Courthouse at 510 19th Street, Bakersfield, CA.

Failure to comply with this order may result in the imposition of sanctions, including the 

dismissal of the action.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 28, 2016 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:16-cv-00340-DAD-JLT Document 6 Filed 04/28/16 Page 2 of 2