Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-00665/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-00665-3/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Bill Bindal
Defendant
Arun Kumar
Defendant
Francisca Moralez
Plaintiff
Real Holdings, Inc
Defendant
Sinclair Gas, Lone Tree Service, Lone Tree Gas & Food
Defendant
Robeheba Tehrani
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 

Northern District of Californi

a

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

FRANCISCA MORALEZ, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

ROBEHEBA TEHRANI, et al., 

Defendants. 

Case No. 16-cv-00665-EDL 

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

TO DISMISS CASE FOR FAILURE TO 

PROSECUTE; ORDER REASSIGNING 

CASE 

On February 9, 2016, pro se Plaintiff filed a complaint against Defendants Robeheba 

Tehrani (dba Sinclair Gas, Lone Tree Service, Lone Tree Gas & Food) and Real Holdings, Inc. 

alleging violation of the Americans With Disabilities Act and related statutes. Plaintiff consented 

to this Court’s jurisdiction. The Court issued a summons as to both Defendants on February 9. 

On March 15, Plaintiff filed a notice with the Court stating that the address for one of the 

Defendants was incorrect on the original summons and the Clerk of Court issued an amended 

summons for Real Holdings, Inc. on March 15 and an amended summons as to both Defendants 

on April 1. 

As of June 2, 2016, there was no showing that either Defendant had been served in 

accordance with 90-day deadline set out in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m). The Court 

therefore issued an Order to Show Cause by no later than June 14 why the case should not be 

dismissed without prejudice for failure to serve, or why more time for service should be allowed. 

See Dkt. No. 9. Plaintiff timely responded to the Order to Show Cause, and attached: (1) a Proof 

of Service indicating that Defendant Tehrani was served on April 26, 2016, and (2) a “Non Service 

Report” indicating that Real Holdings Inc. has not been served because the address provided to the 

process server was incorrect. In the response, Plaintiff also stated an intent to file an amended 

complaint adding new defendants, and requested an additional 30 days to serve these defendants. 

See Dkt. No. 11. 

Case 3:16-cv-00665-WHA Document 28 Filed 11/16/16 Page 1 of 4
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 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

Based on Plaintiff’s response, the Court discharged the first Order to Show Cause on June 

13, 2016. The Court required Plaintiff to file any amended complaint within 14 days and serve 

any amended complaint on all defendants within 30 days of filing. See Dkt. No. 13. The Court 

granted Plaintiff’s request for a continuance of the deadline to conduct a joint site inspection, and 

required the joint site inspection to take place within 90 days. Id. 

On June 28, 2016, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint against Robeheba Tehrani, Arun 

Kumar, Bill Bindal (dba Sinclair Gas, Lone Tree Service, Lone Tree Gas & Food), and Real 

Holdings Inc. See Dkt. No. 14. The Clerk of Court issued a single summons that included the 

names of all Defendants but it is unclear to whom this summons was directed. See Dkt. No. 15. 

As only one summons was issued, it does not appear that Plaintiff complied with Federal Rule of 

Civil Procedure 4(b), which requires that “[a] summons - or a copy of a summons that is addressed 

to multiple defendants - must be issued for each defendant to be served.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(b). On 

July 1, Plaintiff filed a “proof of service” indicating that she attempted to serve defendant Tehrani 

with the initial complaint on April 26, 2016, but not reflecting any attempt to serve Tehrani with 

the amended summons or complaint. Dkt. No. 16. 

Plaintiff filed a request to continue the Joint Site Inspection set for July 7 for another 45 

days, claiming that she had recently filed and served an amended complaint and needed more time 

to contact newly added defendants to schedule the site inspection. Dkt. No. 17. On July 12, the 

Court granted the request and ordered that a joint site inspection be conducted within 45 days, or 

August 26, 2016. Dkt. No. 18. Plaintiff then filed a “proof of service” indicating that she served 

Defendants Bindal and Kumar at a business address by mail on July 8 without any explanation as 

to why service by mail would be appropriate under applicable state law as might be allowed under 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(e)(1) or whether she had provided Defendants with a proper 

request to waive personal service as required by Rule 4(d)(1). See Dkt. No. 19. On July 25, 

Plaintiff moved for entry of default against Defendant Tehrani based on alleged service of the 

initial complaint on April 26 and the Clerk declined to enter default. Dkt. Nos. 21, 22. 

Case 3:16-cv-00665-WHA Document 28 Filed 11/16/16 Page 2 of 4
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 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

Thereafter, nothing was filed other than a Notice of Substitution of Attorney, and on 

October 18, 2016 this Court issued an Order to Show Cause by no later than October 31, 2016 

why the case should not be dismissed for failure to timely serve. The Court explained that: 

Plaintiff’s amended complaint was filed on June 28, and Plaintiff was ordered to 

serve all Defendants with the amended complaint within 30 days and conduct a 

joint site inspection by August 26. Dkt. No. 13. There is no indication that 

Plaintiff properly obtained a summons for each defendant or properly served any 

defendant with the amended complaint. Even if she has properly served any 

defendant with the amended summons and complaint, she has not attempted to 

take the default of any defendant for failure to timely respond to the amended 

complaint. When the time to serve has expired, the Court “must dismiss the 

action without prejudice . . . or order that service be made within a specified 

time.” See Fed. R.Civ. P. 4(m). 

Dkt. No. 24. The Order to Show Cause required Plaintiff’s response to include “a detailed 

explanation as to which, if any, Defendants have been properly served with either the initial or 

amended complaint, when any such service occurred, and why that method of service is permitted 

under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff shall also explain why, if any Defendant has 

been properly served, she has not taken their default.” Id. 

 On October 31, the Court granted Plaintiff’s counsel’s request for an extension of time to 

respond to the Order to Show Cause until November 14, 2016. Plaintiff’s counsel has not 

responded to the Order to Show Cause as of November 16 and no proof of service notices have 

been filed. Therefore, dismissal of the case for failure to timely serve and/or failure to prosecute is 

warranted. Because it appears that Defendant Tehrani may have been served with the initial 

complaint, but has not appeared or consented to magistrate judge jurisdiction, in light of the 

foregoing the Court issues this Report and Recommendation that the case be dismissed for failure 

to timely serve and/or for failure to prosecute. 

/// 

/// 

/// 

/// 

/// 

/// 

Case 3:16-cv-00665-WHA Document 28 Filed 11/16/16 Page 3 of 4
4 

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 

Northern District of Californi

a

The matter is hereby reassigned to a district judge. Any party may serve and file specific 

written objections to this recommendation within fourteen (14) days after being served with a 

copy. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); Civil Local Rule 72-3. Failure to file 

objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. 

IT IS SO RECOMMENDED. 

Dated: November 16, 2016 

 

ELIZABETH D. LAPORTE 

United States Magistrate Judge 

Case 3:16-cv-00665-WHA Document 28 Filed 11/16/16 Page 4 of 4