Richard Graff v. CitiMortgage, Inc et al

Filing 31

(IN CHAMBERS) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: DISMISSAL by Judge Fernando M. Olguin.Plaintiff is granted until 10/2/2017 to file a First Amended Complaint. (vdr)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Case No. CV 17-3439 FMO (PJWx) Title Richard Graff v. CitiMortgage, Inc., et al. Present: The Honorable Date Sept. 20, 2017 Fernando M. Olguin, United States District Judge Vanessa Figueroa None Present Deputy Clerk Court Reporter / Recorder Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs: Attorneys Present for Defendants: None Present None Present Proceedings: (In Chambers) Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal By order dated July 28, 2017 plaintiff was ordered to show cause, on or before August 4, 2017, why this action should not be dismissed for lack of prosecution for failure to complete service of the summons and complaint as required by Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.1 (See Dkt. 17, Court’s Order of July 28, 2017 (“OSC”)). Plaintiff responded to the OSC, (see Dkt. 22, Reply to Order to Show Cause Re” Dismissal Re: Lack of Prosecution), and while not directly addressing whether defendants Cal-Western Reconveyance Corp. (“CalWestern”) and NBS Default Services (“NBS”) have been served with process (see, generally, Dkt. 22, Response), plaintiff requested that he be permitted to file an amended complaint, after which he would serve all defendants. (See id. at 2). On September 1, 2017, the court granted plaintiff additional time to serve Cal-Western and NBS with the summons and complaint given his pro se status. (See Dkt. 29, Court’s Order of September 1, 2017, at 2). The court also granted plaintiff until September 8, 2017, to file a First Amended Complaint. (See id.). As of the date of this Order, plaintiff has not filed a First Amended Complaint. (See, generally, id.). Due to plaintiff’s pro se status, the court will provide plaintiff with one final opportunity to file a First Amended Complaint and effect service of process on Cal-Western and NBS. Based on the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED THAT: 1. Plaintiff is granted until October 2, 2017, to file a First Amended Complaint. 2. The first amended complaint must be labeled “First Amended Complaint,” filed in compliance with Local Rule 3-2 and contain the case number assigned to the case, i.e., Case No. CV 17-3439 FMO (PJWx). In addition, plaintiff is informed that the court cannot refer to a prior pleading in order to make his First Amended Complaint complete. Local Rule 15-2 requires that 1 Unless otherwise indicated, all “Rule” references are to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. CV-90 (10/08) CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Page 1 of 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Case No. CV 17-3439 FMO (PJWx) Date Title Sept. 20, 2017 Richard Graff v. CitiMortgage, Inc., et al. an amended pleading be complete in and of itself without reference to any prior pleading. This is because, as a general rule, an amended pleading supersedes the original pleading. See Ramirez v. Cnty. of San Bernardino, 806 F.3d 1002, 1008 (9th Cir. 2015) (“It is well-established in our circuit that an amended complaint supersedes the original, the latter being treated thereafter as non-existent. In other words, ‘the original pleading no longer performs any function[.]’”) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). 3. Plaintiff is cautioned that failure to timely file a First Amended Complaint shall result in Cal-Western and NBS being dismissed from this action without prejudice for failure to prosecute and/or failure to comply with a court order. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 629-30, 82 S.Ct. 1386, 1388 (1962). 4. Plaintiff shall effect service of process in compliance with Rule 4 no later than October 9, 2017. 5. The Order to Show Cause is hereby continued pending compliance with paragraph one above. 00 Initials of Preparer CV-90 (10/08) CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL : 00 vdr Page 2 of 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?