Francois Tabi v. McCullough et al

Filing 23

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE by Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Chooljian. Within seven (7) days of the date of this Order, plaintiff shall show cause, if there be any, why proper service was not made on defendants by October 13, 2017 and why this case should n ot be dismissed without prejudice against the defendants for failure to effectuate service and for lack of prosecution. Failure timely to respond to this Order to Show Cause or to show cause, may result in the dismissal of this action without prejudice for failure to effectuate service and/or for lack of prosecution. See order for further details. (hr)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.

CV 17-1795 DMG(JC)

Title

Francois Tabi v. Officer McCullough, et al.

Present: The Honorable

Date

November 22, 2017

Jacqueline Chooljian, United States Magistrate Judge

Hana Rashad

None

None

Deputy Clerk

Court Reporter / Recorder

Tape No.

Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs:

Attorneys Present for Defendants:

none

none

Proceedings:

(IN CHAMBERS) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

On March 6, 2017, plaintiff paid the filing fee and filed a complaint against multiple employees
of the Los Angeles Department of Transportation (“LADOT”) (collectively “defendants”). On March 7,
2017, the Court issued an order (“March Order”) advising plaintiff that pursuant to Rule 4(m) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, service of the summons and complaint must be accomplished on each
defendant within 90 days after filing the complaint, i.e., by June 5, 2017. The March Order directed
plaintiff to file separate proof of service forms for each defendant served within the 90-day period, and
cautioned plaintiff that his failure to effectuate proper service by June 5, 2017, may result in dismissal of
the action without prejudice as to any unserved defendant.
On June 2, 2017, plaintiff filed the currently operative First Amended Complaint against the
same defendants. On June 5, 2017, plaintiff filed a “Proof of Service” for each of the defendants which,
in pertinent part, essentially represented that a process server had attempted service simply by delivering
“summonses and the complaints” for all five defendants to an individual at the LADOT main office.
On August 11, 2017, plaintiff filed a Request for Entry of Default Judgment (“Request”) with a
supporting declaration of plaintiff, seeking the entry of a default judgment against each of the defendants
pursuant to Rule 55(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. On September 12, 2017, this Court
issued an Order (“September Order”) denying the Request without prejudice because, as explained in
detail therein, plaintiff failed to demonstrate that he had properly effectuated service of process on any of
the defendants in the manner required by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The September Order
also sua sponte extended plaintiff’s deadline to effect proper service of process upon each of the
defendants and to file proofs of service so reflecting to October 13, 2017, and again cautioned plaintiff
that his failure timely to effectuate proper service and to file proofs of service so demonstrating might
result in dismissal of the action without prejudice as to any unserved defendant by reason of plaintiff’s
failure to prosecute, unless plaintiff could show good cause for further extending the time for service.

CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.

CV 17-1795 DMG(JC)

Date

Title

November 22, 2017

Francois Tabi v. Officer McCullough, et al.

Although the extended deadline for effectuating service has now expired, plaintiff has failed to
file proper proofs of service or to otherwise demonstrate that any defendant has been properly served and
no defendant has appeared in this action. Indeed, plaintiff has not communicated with the Court in this
action at all since the issuance of the September Order.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED, pursuant to Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
and Local Rule 41-1, that within seven (7) days of the date of this Order, plaintiff shall show cause, if
there be any, why proper service was not made on defendants by October 13, 2017 and why this case
should not be dismissed without prejudice against the defendants for failure to effectuate service and for
lack of prosecution. Failure timely to respond to this Order to Show Cause or to show cause, may result
in the dismissal of this action without prejudice for failure to effectuate service and/or for lack of
prosecution.
IT IS SO ORDERED.1

1

The Court’s determinations and order herein constitute non-dispositive rulings on pretrial
matters. To the extent a party disagrees with such non-dispositive rulings, such party may file a motion
for review by the assigned District Judge within fourteen (14) days. See Local Rule 72-2.1. To the
extent a party believes the rulings to be dispositive, rather than non-dispositive, such party has the right
to object to this Court’s determination that the rulings are non-dispositive within fourteen (14) days. A
party will be foreclosed from challenging the rulings herein if such party does not seek review thereof, or
object thereto.
CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 2 of 2