TVB Holdings USA Inc v. Enom Inc et al

Filing 8

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE by Magistrate Judge Robert N. Block. Plaintiff is ORDERED to show good cause, if there be any, why service was not made within the 120-day period and why this case should not be dismissed without prejudice for want of prosecution. Plaintiff shall attempt to show such cause by filing a declaration, signed by plaintiff's counsel under penalty of perjury, within 14 days of the service date of this Order. If plaintiff does not timely file such a declaration or if plaintiff fails to show good cause for its failure to timely serve, this action will be subject to dismissal without prejudice for failure to prosecute. (mt)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

TVB HOLDINGS (USA), INC.,

12
13
14
15
16
17

Plaintiff,
vs.
ENOM, INC., et al.,
Defendants.

) Case No. SACV 13-0624 RNB
)
)
) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
)
)
)
)
)
)

To date, no proofs of service have been filed, and it therefore appears to the

18 Court that none of the remaining defendants has been served within the 120-day
19 period allowed for accomplishment of service of the summons and complaint under
20 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m). By the Court’s calculation, the service period
21 expired here on August 19, 2013.
22

Accordingly, pursuant to Rule 4(m) and Local Rule 41-1, plaintiff is

23 ORDERED to show good cause, if there be any, why service was not made within the
24 120-day period and why this case should not be dismissed without prejudice for want
25 of prosecution. Plaintiff shall attempt to show such cause by filing a declaration,
26 signed by plaintiff’s counsel under penalty of perjury, within fourteen (14) days of
27 the service date of this Order. If plaintiff does not timely file such a declaration
28 or if plaintiff fails to show good cause for its failure to timely serve, this action
1

1 will be subject to dismissal without prejudice for failure to prosecute. See Fed.
2 R. Civ. P. 4(m); Local Rule 41-1; Link v. Wabash R.R., 370 U.S. 626, 629-30, 82 S.
3 Ct. 1386, 8 L. Ed. 2d 734 (1962); see also Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440 (9th
4 Cir. 1988).
5
6 DATED: September 3, 2013
7
8
9

ROBERT N. BLOCK
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2