J. Clark et al v. Rita Gail Farris-Ellison et al

Filing 19

MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER DISMISSING ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE by Judge Michael W. Fitzgerald. The action is DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to comply with Rule 4(m). Case Terminated. Made JS-6. (iv)

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

CV 21-587 MWF (PLAx)

Title

JS-6

J. Clark v. Rita Gail Farris-Ellison, et al.

Present: The Honorable:

Date: April 26, 2021

MICHAEL W. FITZGERALD, United States District Judge

Rita Sanchez
Deputy Clerk

Not Reported
Court Reporter / Recorder

Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs:
Not Present

Attorneys Present for Defendants:
Not Present

Proceedings: (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER DISMISSING ACTION WITHOUT
PREJUDICE

Plaintiff filed this action on December 10, 2020, in Los Angeles County
Superior Court. (Notice of Removal (“NoR”), Ex. A, Complaint (Docket No. 11)). Defendant Flagstar Bank, FSB (“Flagstar”) removed the action on January 21,
2021. (NoR (Docket No. 1)). No other Defendants joined in or consented to the
removal because Plaintiff had not served any Defendants with a copy of the
Summons and Complaint. (See Flagstar’s Response to Order to Show Cause
(“OSC Response”) at 1 (Docket No. 13)).
On February 16, 2021, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause directing
Plaintiff to file proofs of service of all Defendants on or before March 10, 2021
(the “OSC”). (Docket No. 12). The Court explained that Plaintiff’s failure to file
the proofs of service by March 10, 2021, would result in the dismissal of this
action without prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m). (Id.).
On March 15, 2021, the Court sua sponte extended the deadline for Plaintiff to
respond to the OSC to April 21, 2021. (Docket Nos. 14, 18). To date, Plaintiff has
not filed any proofs of service. (See Docket).
To avoid dismissal under Rule 4(m), Plaintiff was required to serve all
Defendants by April 21, 2021. See Vasquez v. N. Cty. Transit Dist., 292 F.3d
1049, 1053 (9th Cir. 2002) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1448 and noting that the ninety-day

CV-90 (03/15)

Civil Minutes – General

Page 1 of 2

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

CV 21-587 MWF (PLAx)

Title

Date: April 26, 2021

J. Clark v. Rita Gail Farris-Ellison, et al.

clock for purposes of Rule 4(m) resets with removal). Plaintiff has neither
demonstrated that he has served all Defendants nor requested an extension of time
to serve Defendants.
Accordingly, the action is DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to
comply with Rule 4(m).
This Order shall constitute notice of entry of judgment pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 58. Pursuant to Local Rule 58-6, the Court ORDERS the
Clerk to treat this Order, and its entry on the docket, as an entry of judgment.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

CV-90 (03/15)

Civil Minutes – General

Page 2 of 2