Lopez Cruz et al v. El Rancho Farms et al

Filing 7

ORDER CONTINUING Scheduling Conference, signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 2/22/2013. Initial Scheduling Conference set for 5/2/2013 at 09:30 AM at the United States Courthouse, 510 19th Street, Bakersfield, before Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston. (Hall, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ANGEL LOPEZ CRUZ, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

12
13
14
15

v.
EL RANCHO FARMS, et al.,
Defendants.

) Case No.: 1:12-cv-01934 AWI JLT
)
) ORDER CONTINUING SCHEDULING
) CONFERENCE
)
)
)
)
)
)

16
17
18

On November 28, 2012, Plaintiffs initiated this litigation by filing their complaint for damages.

19

(Doc. 1) The next day, the Court issued summonses to the defendants (Docs. 4, 5) and issued its order

20

setting the scheduling conference. (Doc. 6) This order explicitly warned Plaintiffs not to delay

21

service. Id. at 1-2. This order reads,

22
23
24
25

The Court is unable to conduct a scheduling conference until defendants have been
served with the summons and complaint. Accordingly, plaintiff(s) shall diligently
pursue service of summons and complaint and dismiss those defendants against
whom plaintiff(s) will not pursue claims. Plaintiff(s) shall promptly file proofs of
service of the summons and complaint so the Court has a record of service. Counsel are
referred to F.R.Civ.P., Rule 4 regarding the requirement of timely service of the
complaint. Failure to timely serve summons and complaint may result in the
imposition of sanctions, including the dismissal of unserved defendants.

26
27

Id., emphasis added. Nevertheless, no proof of service has been filed demonstrating the service

28

of process has been accomplished and no appearance has been made on behalf of either
1

1

defendant.1
ORDER

2
3

Based upon the foregoing, the Court ORDERS:

4

1. The scheduling conference, currently set on March 14, 2013 is CONTINUED to
May 2, 2013 at 9:30 a.m.

5
6
7
8

IT IS SO ORDERED.

9
10
11

Dated:

February 22, 2013

/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

DEAC_Signature-END:

9j7khijed

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

1

In light of the fact that counsel for Plaintiffs’ counsel are actively litigating against Defendant El Rancho in another
matter (Rosales v. El Rancho, 1:09-cv-00709 AWI JLT) and which heavily involves Defendant Garza, the failure to serve
the complaint cannot be attributed to difficulty in service.

2