Unicolors Inc v. Mangel Stores Corp et al

Filing 30

ORDER CONTINUING ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE. SERVICE ON DEFENDANT MANGEL STORESCORP. by Judge Otis D. Wright, II: The Court therefore ORDERS Plaintiff TO SHOW CAUSE by Monday, January 6, 2014, why the Court should not dismiss Unicolorss claims against Ma ngel Stores Corp. for lack of prosecution. No hearing will be held. The Court will discharge this Order upon filing of a valid proof of service upon Mangel Stores Corp. or a written statement demonstrating good cause for the delay. Failure to timely respond will result in dismissal Mangel Stores Corp. from this action. (lc)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11
12

UNICOLORS, INC.,

13
14
15
16
17

v.

Plaintiff,

MANGEL STORES CORP.; SUSIE’S
DEALS; RAINBOW SHOPS, INC.; CITI
TRENDS, INC.; DOES 1–10, inclusive,

Case No. 2:13-cv-06152-ODW(FFMx)
ORDER CONTINUING ORDER TO
SHOW CAUSE RE. SERVICE ON
DEFENDANT MANGEL STORES
CORP.

Defendants.

18

On August 21, 2013, Plaintiff Unicolors, Inc. filed a Complaint against

19

Defendants. (ECF No. 1.) The Clerk of Court issued a Summons the same day.

20

(ECF No. 2.) On December 20, 2013, the Court ordered Unicolors to show cause why

21

it had not served Defendant Mangel Stores Corp. by December 19, 2013—the 120th

22

day after Unicolors filed its Complaint. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m) (“If a defendant is

23

not served within 120 days after the complaint is filed, the court--on motion or on its

24

own after notice to the plaintiff--must dismiss the action without prejudice against that

25

defendant or order that service be made within a specified time.”).

26

On December 24, 2013, Unicolors responded to the Order, indicating that it

27

only recently located a New Jersey address for Mangel Stores Corp. (ECF No. 29.)

28

Plaintiff requests a two-week extension of time to serve Mangel Stores.

1

The Court therefore ORDERS Plaintiff TO SHOW CAUSE by Monday,

2

January 6, 2014, why the Court should not dismiss Unicolors’s claims against

3

Mangel Stores Corp. for lack of prosecution. No hearing will be held. The Court will

4

discharge this Order upon filing of a valid proof of service upon Mangel Stores Corp.

5

or a written statement demonstrating good cause for the delay. Failure to timely

6

respond will result in dismissal Mangel Stores Corp. from this action.

7

IT IS SO ORDERED.

8
9

December 30, 2013

10
11
12
13

____________________________________
OTIS D. WRIGHT, II
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2