T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T h e p a rtie s c o n s e n te dto p r o c e e db e f o r e am a g is tr a te ju d g e . See 28 ** U . S . C . § 6 36 (c ).

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on *** w ith o u t o r a l a r g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T CHRI ST I NA SANCHEZ, P la in tif

f - A p p e lla n t, v. S U Z E T T E Z . T O R R E S ; e t a l., D efen d an t s - A p p el l ees. N o. 09- 16651 D . C. N o . 5 : 0 7 - c v - 0 4 1 7 4 - H RL ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e N o rth e rn D is tr ic t o f C a lif o rn ia H ow a r d R . L l oy d, M a gi s tr a t e J udge , P r e s i di ng **

S ubm i tt e d J une 15, 2011 *** B e f o r e : C A N B Y , O ’S C A N N L A I N , a n dF I S H E R , C ir c u it J u d g e s . C hr i s t i naS a nc he z appe a l s pr o s e f r om the di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s j udgm e nt d is m is s in g h e ra c tio n f

o rla c ko f

s u b je c t m a tte rju r is d ic tio n a n df o rf a ilu r e to 

# FI LED JU L 1 2 011 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS09- 16651 2 p ro secu t e. W e h av e j u ri sd i ct i o n u n d er 2 8 U . S . C . § 1 2 9 1 . W e rev i ew fo r an ab u se o f d is c r e tio n th e d is tr ic t c o u rt’s d is m is s a l f o rf a ilu r e to s e rv e . O

y am a v . She e han ( I n r e She e han) , 2 5 3 F .3 d 5 0 7 , 5 1 1 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 1 ) . W e a f f irm . T h e d is tr ic t c o u rt d idn o t ab u s e its d is c r e tio n b yd is m is s in g th e a c tio n a s to de f e nda nt s w ho ha d notvol unt a r i l yappe a r e d be c aus e S a nc he z f a i l e d t o pr ovi de pr oof s of s e rvi c e e i the rw i thi n 120 da y s of f i l i ng he rc om pl a i ntori n the pe r i od spec i fi ed i n the di stri ctcourt ’ s order , or t o d em on stra t e goo d cause for herfa i l ure to d o s o . See F e d. R . C i v. P . 4( m ) ( r e qui r i ng s e rvi c e w i thi n 120 da y s a f t e rthe c o m p la in t is f

ile d , o rw ith in atim e p e r io ds p e c if ie db yc o u rt o r d e r ) ; I

n r e She e han , 2 5 3 F .3 d a t 5 1 2 ( d is c u s s in g g o o d c au s e s ta n d a r d ) ; s e e al s o W ong v . R ege nt

s of U n iv . o f Ca l. , 410 F . 3d 1052, 1060 ( 9th C i r . 2005) ( c ourt s ha ve author i tyt o s e ta nd enforce deadl i nes t o fost erthe ef fi ci entre sol ut i on of ca se s) . C o n tr a ryto S a n c h e z ’s c o n te n tio n , th e d is tr ic t c o u rt d idn o t ab u s e its di sc re t i on by denyi ng S anchez’ s thi rd re qu es tfor an ext ensi on of t i m e t o fi l e a th ir d a m e n d e d c o m p la in t. Se e Chodos v . W e s t P ubl ’ g C o. , 292 F . 3d 992, 1003 ( 9th C i r . 2002) (s ett i ng forth st andard of revi ew and exp l ai ni ng thatthe di stri ct court ’ s di sc re t i on i s part i cul ar l y broad w hen i thas a l re ady grant ed l eave t o am end). S a n c h e z ’s m o tio n f

o rju d ic ia l n o tic e is d e n ie d . AF F I RME D.