Miner, et al. v. Ferranti, et al.

Filing 13

ORDER DENYING 12 Plaintiffs' Motion for a 90-Day Extension of Time to Serve Process, signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 11/5/2015. Proofs of Service due by 12/14/2015. (Hall, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

CAROLYN MINER, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

12
13
14
15
16

v.
BARBARA FERRANTI, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 1:15-cv-00352 --- JLT
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR
A 90-DAY EXTENSION OF TIME TO SERVE
PROCESS
(Doc. 12)

17

On March 5, 2015, Plaintiffs filed the instant action. (Doc. 1) On the July 23, 2015, the Court

18

issued the summonses (Docs. 2-9) and its order setting the mandatory scheduling conference to occur

19

on November 9, 2015. (Doc. 10) Nevertheless, Plaintiff has not filed a proof of service of the

20

summons and complaint and no defendant has appeared in the action. Thus, on October 28, 2015, the

21

Court ordered Plaintiffs to show cause why the matter should not be dismissed for their failure to serve

22

the summons and complaint within a timely manner. (Doc. 11)

23

Only plaintiff, Carolyn Miner, responded and she provided no explanation for Plaintiffs’

24

failure to effect service on the defendants. (Doc. 12) Rather Ms. Miner seeks 90 additional days to

25

serve process without any showing why Plaintiffs need the extension of time. Id. Notably, Plaintiffs

26

have sued four companies, two lawyers and an individual. The Court has no understanding how there

27

is any problem effecting service on the companies or the lawyers and has no information that service

28

on the individual presents any difficulty. The sole explanation for the request for a 90-day extension is
1

1

that “a 60 day extension of time would be in the middle of the holidays, which would be awkward for

2

many . . .” (Doc. 12 at 1) This is insufficient.

3

Therefore the Court ORDERS:

4

1.

No later than December 14, 2015, Plaintiffs SHALL file proofs of service showing

5

proper service on each of the Defendants. Failure to do so will result in a recommendation that the

6

matter and/or a party be dismissed for failure to comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m).

7
8
9
10

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

November 5, 2015

/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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