LAWRENCE J HOFFART et al v. Washington Mutual Bank National Association

Filing 9

ORDER OF DISMISSAL by Judge George H. King. It is Ordered that this action is dismissed without prejudice. (sp)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17

LAWRENCE J. HOFFART and
SANDRA M. HOFFART,

)
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
v.
)
)
WASHINGTON MUTUAL BANK,
)
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, a domestic
)
corporation,
)
)
Defendant.
)
)
___________________________________)

NO. CV 12-10465-E

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

18
19

Plaintiffs paid the filing fee and filed a Complaint on

20

December 6, 2012.

Plaintiffs have not filed any proof of service of

21

the Summons and Complaint.

22

Court ordered Plaintiffs to show cause in writing, no later than

23

April 30, 2013, why this action should not be dismissed for lack of

24

prosecution and for failure to comply with Rule 4(m) of the Federal

25

Rules of Civil Procedure.

26

“[f]ailure to file a timely response to this Order may result in

27

dismissal of the action.”

28

response to the Minute Order within the allotted time.

By Minute Order filed April 10, 2013, the

The Minute Order warned Plaintiffs that

Nevertheless, Plaintiffs did not file any

1

Under Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the

2

Court may dismiss an action without prejudice if the summons and

3

complaint are not served on the defendant within 120 days after filing

4

the complaint or within the time specified by the Court.

5

Williams, 473 F.3d 1038, 1041 (9th Cir. 2007).

6

court to extend the time for service if a plaintiff shows good cause

7

for the failure to serve.

8

neglect.”

9

Here, Plaintiffs have not shown good cause for their failure to effect

10

Efaw v.

Rule 4(m) requires a

“At a minimum, ‘good cause’ means excusable

Bourdette v. Barnette, 923 F.2d 754, 756 (9th Cir. 1991).

timely service on the Defendant.

11
12

A court has “broad discretion” to extend the time for service

13

under Rule 4(m), even absent a showing of good cause.

14

Williams, 473 F.3d at 1040-41; see also United States v. 2,164

15

Watches, More or Less, Bearing a Registered Trademark of Guess?, Inc.,

16

366 F.3d 767, 773 (9th Cir. 2004) (Rule 4(m) gives courts “leeway to

17

preserve meritorious lawsuits despite untimely service of process”).

18

A court may consider various factors including prejudice to the

19

defendant, actual notice, a possible limitations bar, and eventual

20

service.

21

should be without prejudice.

22

Plaintiffs’ failure to comply with the Minute Order renders an

23

evaluation of these factors somewhat speculative.

24

evidence that Defendant has actual notice of this action.

25

possible prejudice to the Defendant resulting from the delay is

26

unknown, as is the impact of dismissal on a possible future

27

limitations bar.

28

eventually would effect service.

Efaw v. Williams, 473 F.3d at 1041.
See id. at 772.

See Efaw v.

Any such dismissal
In the present case,

There is no
The

There is no indication when, if ever, Plaintiffs

2

1

Service of the Summons and Complaint by the United States

2

Marshals Service is not an appropriate option in the present case.

3

The Court generally will order Marshals’ service when a plaintiff, in

4

forma pauperis, files a complaint that is not dismissed sua sponte

5

under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).

6

Plaintiffs are not in forma pauperis.

7

discretion to order Marshals’ service of a non-IFP complaint “in

8

certain limited circumstances as when a hostile defendant threatens

9

injury to the process server.”

See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(3).
Rule 4(c)(3) grants the Court

Wright and Miller, Federal Practice

10

and Procedure, § 1090, p. 476 (3rd ed. 2002).

11

Plaintiffs have not

made any such showing.

12
13

In addition to dismissing this action for failure to effect

14

timely service, the Court may dismiss this action for failure to

15

prosecute.

16

Order that Plaintiffs do so.

17

the orderly and expeditious disposition of cases by dismissing actions

18

for failure to prosecute.

19

30 (1962).

Neither Plaintiff filed a timely response, despite a Court
The Court has inherent power to achieve

See Link v. Wabash R.R., 370 U.S. 626, 629-

20
21
22

For all of the foregoing reasons, it is ordered that this action
is dismissed without prejudice.

23
24

LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.

25
26

DATED:

5/13

, 2013.

27
______________________________
28
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
3