Amerisure Insurance Company v R&L Carriers, Inc, et al.
Filing
18
FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS to Dismiss Defendant Midas Solutions Incorporated Pursuant to Rule 4(M), signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 1/8/2021. Referred to Judge Dale A. Drozd. Objections to F&R due within 14 days. (Hall, S)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
v.
)
)
R&L CARRIERS, INC, A CORPORATION, )
et al.,
)
Defendants.
)
)
AMERISURE INSURANCE COMPANY,
Case No.: 1:20-cv-01134-DAD-JLT
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO
DISMISS DEFENDANT MIDAS SOLUTIONS
INCORPORATED PURSUANT TO RULE 4(M)
[FOURTEEN-DAY OBJECTION DEADLINE]
On December 18, 2020, the court issued an order to plaintiff to show cause why Defendant
18
Midas Solutions Incorporated should not be dismissed for failure to comply with Rule 4 of the Federal
19
Rules of Civil Procedure. (Doc. 16.) Plaintiff has not responded to the order to show cause and the
20
time period for doing so has expired.
21
DISCUSSION
22
Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides:
23
If a defendant is not served within 90 days after the complaint is filed, the court—on
motion or on its own after notice to the plaintiff—must dismiss the action without
prejudice against that defendant or order that service be made within a specified time.
But if the plaintiff shows good cause for the failure, the court must extend the time for
service for an appropriate period.
24
25
26
27
28
Well over 90 days have passed since the complaint was filed, and the plaintiff has not shown
good cause for failing to serve Defendant Midas Solutions Incorporated. The court’s order to show
1
1
cause cautioned the plaintiff that “[f]ailure to comply will result in a recommendation that this
2
defendant be dismissed.” (Doc. 16 at 2.) Accordingly, dismissal is warranted for the claims against
3
Defendant Midas Solutions Incorporated pursuant to Rule 4(m). Dismissal pursuant to Rule
4
4(m) would be without prejudice.
RECOMMENDATION
5
6
7
Based upon the foregoing, the court RECOMMENDS that Defendant Midas Solutions
Incorporated and all claims against it be dismissed without prejudice from this action.
8
These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge
9
assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Rule 304 of the Local
10
Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. Within fourteen
11
days after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections
12
with the court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and
13
Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may
14
waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991);
15
Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 834 (9th Cir. 2014).
16
17
18
19
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
January 8, 2021
/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?