Haskins, et al. v. Moynihan, et al.

Filing 68

ORDER granting 60 Motion to Quash Service of Summons and directing the Clerk to strike the Summons Returned Executed (Docs. 62-65). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED directing the Plaintiffs to properly serve the Summons and Second Amended Complaint upon Defendants. If Plaintiffs fail to prosecute this action or comply with the rules or any Court Order, the Court may dismiss the action with prejudice. See PDF document for details. Signed by Judge G Murray Snow on 10/12/10.(LSP)

Haskins, et al. v. Moynihan, et al.

Doc. 68

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

WO NOT FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA Michael Edward Haskins and Barbara) ) Haskins, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) vs. ) ) Brian T. Moynihan, et al., ) ) Defendants. ) No. CV-10-1000-PHX-GMS ORDER

Pending before the Court are Defendants' Second Motion to Quash Service of Summons (Doc. 60), Plaintiffs' Response and Reply thereto (Docs. 66-67). consideration, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion to Quash Service of Summons is Granted. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED directing the Clerk of the Court to strike the Summons Returned Executed (Docs. 62-65). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED directing the Plaintiffs to properly serve the Summons and Second Amended Complaint upon Defendants pursuant to Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and notice of proof of service must be filed with the Court within the time stated. It is the responsibility of Plaintiffs to familiarize themselves with the rules. The rules can be found on the Court's website at www.azd.uscourts.gov. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if Plaintiffs fail to prosecute this action or comply with the rules or any Court Order, the Court may dismiss the action with prejudice pursuant After

Dockets.Justia.com

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

to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir.1992) (holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing a pro se plaintiff's complaint for failing to comply with a court order). DATED this 12th day of October, 2010.

-2-