Shin v. Yoon et al

Filing 7

ORDER to SHOW CAUSE Why Action Should Not Be Dismissed for Failure to Serve Defendants and ORDER VACATING March 29, 2018 Mandatory Scheduling Conference signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 3/15/2018. Show Cause Response due within fourteen (14) days. (Jessen, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

HYUN JU SHIN,
Plaintiff,

11
12
13
14

v.
ROBERT YOUNG YOON, et al.,

Case No. 1:17-cv-01371-AWI-MJS
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY ACTION
SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR FAILURE
TO SERVE DEFENDANTS
ORDER VACATING MARCH 29, 2018
MANDATORY SCHEDULING CONFERENCE

Defendants.
FOURTEEN (14) DAY DEADLINE

15
16
17
18

Plaintiff Hyun Ju Shin initiated this action on October 11, 2017 against

19

Defendants Robert Young Yoon, Kyoung Mee Yoon, Kyoung Sup Yoon, Y&Y Property

20

Management, Inc., the Victus Group, Inc., and Blackstone Seattle, LLC. (ECF No. 1.)

21

Summons issued the following day. (ECF Nos. 3, 4.) An initial scheduling conference

22

was set. (ECF No. 5.) The scheduling conference was vacated due to Plaintiffs’ apparent

23

failure to serve Defendants. (ECF No. 6.) Plaintiff was then reminded of the obligation to

24

serve Defendants in compliance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m). (Id.)

25

To date, the docket reflects no efforts to serve Defendants.

26

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) provides, in pertinent part: “If a defendant is

27

not served within 90 days after the complaint is filed, the court--on motion or on its own

28

1

after notice to the plaintiff--must dismiss the action without prejudice against that

2

defendant or order that service be made within a specified time. But if the plaintiff shows

3

good cause for the failure, the court must extend the time for service for an appropriate

4

period.”

5

Here, service of the complaint is overdue. Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED

6

that, within fourteen days of the date of this order, Plaintiff shall either serve Defendants

7

or show cause why this action should not be dismissed without prejudice for failure to

8

serve Defendants in compliance with Rule 4(m). In light of the status of this case, the

9

mandatory scheduling conference is HEREBY VACATED and will be reset, if necessary,

10

following Plaintiff’s response to this order.

11
12
13

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

March 15, 2018

/s/

14

Michael J. Seng

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2