Life Bliss Foundation et al v. Sun TV Network Limited et al

Filing 83

MINUTE ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: FAILURE TO PROSECUTE (IN CHAMBERS) by Judge Virginia A. Phillips: the Court ORDERS Plaintiffs to show cause, in writing, not later than March 13, 2014, why Ramados Ayyappan, V. Raja, Nithya Dharmananda, a.k.a., Lenin Karuppannan, Moorthi Shreedhar, Karuppannan Kumar, Giridhar Lal Prasan Kumar, Aarthi Rao, and Manickam Narayanan should not be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute. Failure to file a response will result in dismissal of the FAC as to Unserved Defendants.( Response to Order to Show Cause due by 3/13/2014.) (mrgo)

PRIORITY SEND
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES -- GENERAL
Case No. EDCV 13-00393-VAP (SPx)

Date: March 6, 2014

Title:

LIFE BLISS FOUNDATION AND NITHYANANDA DHYANAPEETAM
TEMPLE & CULTURAL CENTER -v- SUN TV NETWORK LIMITED, ET
AL.
===============================================================
PRESENT:
HONORABLE VIRGINIA A. PHILLIPS, U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
Marva Dillard
Courtroom Deputy
ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR
PLAINTIFFS:

None Present
Court Reporter
ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR
DEFENDANTS:

None
PROCEEDINGS:

None
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: FAILURE TO PROSECUTE
(IN CHAMBERS)

On March 1, 2013, Plaintiffs Life Bliss Foundation and Nithyananda
Dhyanapeetam Temple and Cultural Center (collectively, "Plaintiffs") filed a
Complaint (Doc. No. 1), alleging that the defendants named in the Complaint
violated the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO"), resulting
in a decline of donations, sales, and revenue for Plaintiffs. (Compl. ¶¶ 3-19, 25-28.)
On April 5, 2013, Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint (Doc. No. 4) and, on
June 27, 2013, a corrected First Amended Complaint (Doc. No. 8) ("FAC"), alleging
the same RICO claim asserted in the Complaint, but adding another defendant and
more factual details. (See generally FAC.) The defendants named in the FAC are:
(1) Sun TV Network Limited; (2) Nakkheeran Publications; (3) Kalanithi Maran;
(4) Dharmaraja Hansraj Saxena; (5) Ramados Ayyappan; (6) V. Raja; (7) S.
MINUTES FORM 11
CIVIL -- GEN

Initials of Deputy Clerk ___md___
Page 1

EDCV 13-00393-VAP (SPx)
LIFE BLISS FOUNDATION AND NITHYANANDA DHYANAPEETAM TEMPLE & CULTURAL CENTER v. SUN TV NETWORK LIMITED, et al.
MINUTE ORDER of March 6, 2014

Kannan; (8) R.M.R. Ramesh; (9) Ramanathan Gopal; (10) Annamalai Kamaraj;
(11) Nithya Dharmananda, a.k.a., Lenin Karuppannan; (12) Moorthi Shreedhar;
(13) Karuppannan Kumar; (14) Giridhar Lal Prasan Kumar; (15) Aarthi Rao; and
(16) Manickam Narayanan. (See FAC ¶¶ 5-20.)
To date, Plaintiffs have filed proofs of service on seven defendants: Sun TV
Network Limited, Nakkheeran Publications, Kalanithi Maran, Dharmaraja Hansraj
Saxena, S. Kannan, Ramanathan Gopal, and Annamalai Kamaraj. (See Proofs of
Service (Doc. Nos. 36-42).) As for R.M.R. Ramesh, Plaintiffs have not yet filed a
proof of service on him. On September 25, 2013, Ramesh filed a Motion to Dismiss
for lack of personal jurisdiction (Doc. No. 28), a Motion to Dismiss for failure to state
a claim, with three other defendants (Doc. No. 30), and a Motion to Dismiss based
on the forum non conveniens doctrine and improper venue, with the same three
defendants (Doc. No. 31). Ramesh did not raise either the insufficient process or
the insufficient service of process issue in any of these motions. Rather, he has
continued to prosecute his case. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure ("FRCP") 12(g)-(h)
provides that failure to assert a defense or an objection based on insufficient
process or insufficient service of process in a FRCP 12 motion is considered a
waiver of the defense or objection. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(g)-(h). The Court thus finds
Ramesh has waived his insufficient process and insufficient service of process
defenses, and considers the FAC served on him, effective September 25, 2013.
Plaintiffs have not filed a proof of service on the other eight defendants in this
action: Ramados Ayyappan, V. Raja, Nithya Dharmananda, a.k.a., Lenin
Karuppannan, Moorthi Shreedhar, Karuppannan Kumar, Giridhar Lal Prasan Kumar,
Aarthi Rao, and Manickam Narayanan (collectively, "Unserved Defendants"). Nor
have Plaintiffs submitted evidence purporting to show efforts made to give notice or
a reason notice should not be required. Pursuant to FRCP 4(m), a plaintiff must
serve summons and complaint on all named defendants within 120 days of filing.
When a plaintiff fails to prosecute the case, the Court on its own motion may dismiss
the case for that failure under FRCP 41(b). See Tolbert v. Leighton, 623 F.2d 585,
586-87 (9th Cir. 1980). Plaintiffs have failed to prosecute this action as to Unserved
Defendants, as more than 120 days have elapsed since Plaintiffs filed the Complaint
on March 1, 2013 and the corrected FAC on June 27, 2013, in which one of the
MINUTES FORM 11
CIVIL -- GEN

Initials of Deputy Clerk ___md___
Page 2

EDCV 13-00393-VAP (SPx)
LIFE BLISS FOUNDATION AND NITHYANANDA DHYANAPEETAM TEMPLE & CULTURAL CENTER v. SUN TV NETWORK LIMITED, et al.
MINUTE ORDER of March 6, 2014

Unserved Defendants was added. Thus, this action is subject to dismissal as to the
eight Unserved Defendants.
Accordingly, the Court ORDERS Plaintiffs to show cause, in writing, not later
than March 13, 2014, why Ramados Ayyappan, V. Raja, Nithya Dharmananda,
a.k.a., Lenin Karuppannan, Moorthi Shreedhar, Karuppannan Kumar, Giridhar Lal
Prasan Kumar, Aarthi Rao, and Manickam Narayanan should not be dismissed
without prejudice for failure to prosecute. Failure to file a response will result in
dismissal of the FAC as to Unserved Defendants.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

MINUTES FORM 11
CIVIL -- GEN

Initials of Deputy Clerk ___md___
Page 3