Roberts et al v. UBS AG et al

Filing 54

ORDER signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 10/25/2013 dismissing wihout prejudice Defendants, Hansruedi Schumacher and Matthias Rickenbacher for failure to file proofs of service. (Lundstrom, T)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

NADIA ROBERTS, et al.,
Plaintiffs

11
12

v.

13

UBS AG, et al.,

14

Case No. 1:12-cv-00724-LJO-SKO
ORDER DISMISSING WITHOUT
PREJUDICE DEFENDANTS
SCHUMACHER AND RICKENBACHER
FOR FAILURE TO FILE PROOFS OF
SERVICE

Defendants.

15
16
17

_____________________________________/

18
19

On May 3, 2012, Plaintiffs Nadia Roberts, et al. ("Plaintiffs") filed a complaint, and the

20 Second Amended Complaint was filed on February 21, 2013. (Docs. 2, 33.) On October 2, 2013,
21 the Court issued an order requiring Plaintiffs to file either Proofs of Service or Notices of
22 Dismissal as to Defendants Hansruedi Schumacher ("Schumacher") and Matthias Rickenbach
23 ("Rickenbach") within ten (10) days of the date of the order. (Doc. 53.) Plaintiffs were informed
24 that failure to comply with the Court's order may result in dismissal of these Defendants pursuant
25 to Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which provides that "'[i]f a defendant is not
26 served within 120 days after the complaint is filed, the court – on motion or on its own after notice
27 to the plaintiff – must dismiss the action without prejudice against that defendant or order that
28 service be made within a specified time.'" (Doc. 48, 3:13-16 (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m).) (Doc.

1 53, 2:1-6.) Plaintiffs did not file either Proofs of Service or Notices of Dismissal. Plaintiffs had
2 also been previously informed by the Court that failure to comply with Rule 4(m) would result in
3 dismissal of the Defendants who had not yet been served. (See Doc. 48, 3:13-22; Doc. 50,
4 3:26-4:2.)
5

Pursuant to Rule 4(m), where a defendant is not served within 120 days after the complaint

6 is filed, the court must dismiss the action as to that defendant without prejudice. Here, more than
7 120 days have passed and there is no evidence that Schumacher and Rickenbach have been served.
8 The case is DISMISSED without prejudice as to Defendants Schumacher and Rickenbach.
9
10

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1.

11
12

Defendants Hansruedi Schumacher and Matthias Rickenbach are DISMISSED
without prejudice; and

2.

The Clerk of the Court shall not administratively close this action.

13
14
15

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill

October 25, 2013

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2