Jason Alan v. Security Credit Services, LLC et al

Filing 23

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE by Judge Fernando M. Olguin that (1) Plaintiff shall file a proof of service no later than 5/12/2017. (2) Plaintiff is again admonished that failure to respond to the OSC or file a proof of service by the 5/12/2017, deadline will result in the action being dismissed without prejudice for lack of prosecution and/or failure to comply with the orders of the court. (3) The Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal Re: Lack of Prosecution, is hereby continued pending compliance with paragraph one above. (jp)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 JASON ALAN, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) SECURITY CREDIT SERVICES, LLC, et ) al., ) ) Defendants. ) ) Case No. CV 17-1898 FMO (FFMx) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 15 Plaintiff filed his state-court complaint on February 10, 2017, (see Dkt. 1, Notice of Removal 16 (“NOR”) at ¶ 2; Dkt 1-1, Complaint), which was removed by certain defendants on March 9, 2017. 17 (See NOR). By order dated April 19, 2017, plaintiff was ordered to show cause, on or before April 18 25, 2017, why remaining defendant Opt Out Services LLC should not be dismissed for lack of 19 prosecution for failure to complete service of the summons and complaint as required by Rule 20 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.1 (See Dkt. 20, Court’s Order of April 19, 2017). 21 Plaintiff was advised that the court may dismiss the action prior to the 90 days required by Rule 22 4(m) if plaintiff has not diligently prosecuted the action. (See id.). Moreover, plaintiff was 23 admonished that “[f]ailure to file a timely response to this Order to Show Cause may result in Opt 24 Out Services LLC being dismissed for lack of prosecution and for failure to comply with the orders 25 of the court, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 629-30, 26 27 28 1 Unless otherwise indicated, all “Rule” references are to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 1 82 S.Ct. 1386, 1388 (1962).” (Id.). As of the date of this Order, plaintiff has not filed a response 2 to the OSC.2 (See, generally, Dkt.). 3 Absent a showing of good cause, an action must be dismissed without prejudice if the 4 summons and complaint are not served on a defendant within 90 days after the complaint is filed. 5 Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). The court will grant plaintiff one final opportunity to comply with Rule 4(m). 6 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT: 7 1. Plaintiff shall file a proof of service no later than May 12, 2017. 8 2. Plaintiff is again admonished that failure to respond to the OSC or file a proof of service 9 by the May 12, 2017, deadline will result in the action being dismissed without prejudice for lack 10 of prosecution and/or failure to comply with the orders of the court. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Link 11 v. Wabash R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 629-30, 82 S.Ct. 1386, 1388 (1962. 3. The Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal Re: Lack of Prosecution, is hereby continued 12 13 pending compliance with paragraph one above. 14 Dated this 3rd day of May, 2017. 15 /s/ Fernando M. Olguin United States District Judge 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 Plaintiff has dismissed the two other defendant named in the Complaint. (See Dkt. 17 & 19). 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?