Joseph Guy Vachon v. Reverse Mortgage Solutions Inc et al

Filing 14

MINUTE (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER to show cause why action against original Defendants should not be dismissed for lack of prosecution; Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint 12 by Magistrate Judge Karen E. Scott. Accordingly, the Court hereby orders Plaintiff to show cause on or before March 20, 2017 why the original Defendants should not be dismissed for failure to effect timely service. Plaintiff may discharge this OSC by filing valid, legible proof of service declarations with the Court for each of the above- listed Defendants (excepting HUD) on or before March 20, 2017. (See document for details). (dv)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
Case No. 5:16-CV-02419-DMG-KES

Date: February 28, 2017

Title: Joseph Guy Vachon v. Reverse Mortgage Solutions Inc., et al.
PRESENT:
THE HONORABLE KAREN E. SCOTT, U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Jazmin Dorado
Courtroom Clerk

Not Present
Court Reporter

ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR PLAINTIFF:
None Present

ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR DEFENDANT:
None Present

PROCEEDINGS (IN CHAMBERS):

ORDER to show cause why action against
original Defendants should not be
dismissed for lack of prosecution;
Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint
(Dkt. 12.)

On November 22, 1016, Plaintiff filed a civil rights Complaint and a
“Complaint in Writ of Replevin with Writ of Right.” (Dkts. 1, 2.) In his Complaint,
Plaintiff named the following Defendants:
1. Reverse Mortgage Solutions Inc;
2. Finance of America Reverse LLC, formally known as Urban Financial
Group Inc;
3. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”);
4. Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Riverside,
Murrieta Courthouse;
5. Zieve, Brodnax, and Steele LLP;
6. Attorney Leslie M. Klott;
7. Rehick, Riverside County Sheriff-Officer; and
8. Does 1-50, all unnamed unknown parties.
On November 29, 2016, the Court issued an Order advising Plaintiff that per
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m), his deadline to effectuate service on

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
Case No. 5:16-CV-02419-DMG-KES

Date: February 28, 2017
Page 2

Defendants is February 27, 2017. The Court warned Plaintiff that his failure to
effectuate proper service may result in the dismissal of the action without prejudice
unless Plaintiff could show good cause for extending the time for service. (Dkt.
11.)
On February 21, 2017, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”)
and “Amended Complaint in Writ of Replevin with Writ of Right” per Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a). (Dkts. 12, 13.) Plaintiff’s FAC adds Defendant
Albert J. Wojcik, a judge for the Superior Court of Riverside County. (See Dkt. 12
at 1.)1
Plaintiff’s deadline to serve the Defendants named in his original Complaint
has passed.2 Accordingly, the Court hereby orders Plaintiff to show cause on or
before March 20, 2017 why the original Defendants should not be dismissed for
failure to effect timely service. Plaintiff may discharge this OSC by filing valid,
legible proof of service declarations with the Court for each of the above-listed
Defendants (excepting HUD) on or before March 20, 2017.
With regard to Defendant Wojcik, service must be accomplished within 90
days after the filing of Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint. By the Court’s
calculation, the 90-day period will expire on May 22, 2017. Plaintiff is again
warned that failure to effectuate proper service on Defendant Wojcik may result in
the dismissal of Plaintiff’s claims against him without prejudice unless Plaintiff
can show good cause for extending the time for service.
Plaintiff is advised that the Public Service Law Corporation runs a free
Federal Pro Se Clinic at the Riverside federal courthouse where pro se litigants can
1

The FAC also omits Defendant HUD from the caption and indicates intent dismiss
Defendant HUD (Dkt. 12 at 1, 27 [“ … but either way Defendant-FAR and HUD (Not Part of
this Action) … ”]). Because it appears as though no defendants have been served in this case, the
Court considers Defendant HUD voluntarily dismissed per Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
41(a)(1)(A).
2
The 90-day time limit for service on the original Defendants is not affected by the filing
of an amended Complaint. See Bolden v. City of Topeka, 441 F.3d 1129, 1148 (10th Cir. 2006);
Holmes v. Andrew Agassi College Prep Academy, 2012 WL 2838604, at *2 (D. Nev. July 10,
2012) (“Although Plaintiff filed the amended complaint …adding the Foundation as a defendant,
the filing of this amended complaint only reset the 4(m) deadline for the Foundation, not for [the
original defendant].”).

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
Case No. 5:16-CV-02419-DMG-KES

Date: February 28, 2017
Page 3

get information and guidance. The clinic is located in Room 125 of the George E.
Brown Federal Building, 3420 12th Street, Riverside, California 92501. For more
information, litigants may call [phone] or they may visit the Pro Se Home
Page at http://court.cacd.uscourts.gov/cacd/ProSe.nsf. Clinic information is found
there by clicking “Pro Se Clinic - Riverside.”

Initials of Deputy Clerk JD