Clark v. Hann et al

Filing 42

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 10/13/09 ORDERING that the MOTION to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, in the alternative, to quash service of process brought by defendants Shigomoto, Parks, Cargile, and Romero, originally filed on 9/21/09 and noticed for hearing before the assigned district judge 37 and refiled on 9/22/09 39 is DENIED as moot due to the dismissal of the complaint at issue in the motion. Denial of the motion is without prejudice to renewal if plaintiff names any of these individuals as defendants in a First Amended Complaint and the jurisdictional issue is not resolved by Plaintiff's service of the amended pleading. Defendants' MOTION is dropped from the 10/30/09 calendar. (Mena-Sanchez, L)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 vs. POLICE OFFICER HANN, et al., Defendants. / Defendants Nora Shigomoto (sued as Nora Shigemoto), Kathleen Parks, Annie Cargile (sued as Ms. Annie), and Nicole Romero (sued as Ms. Nicole) have moved to dismiss plaintiff's May 27, 2009 complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction or, in the alternative, to quash service of process for failure to effect proper service of the complaint on the moving defendants. The motion has been properly noticed for hearing before the undersigned on October 30, 2009. By order filed August 25, 2009, the undersigned granted five motions to dismiss brought by numerous other defendants in this action. (Doc. No. 36.) The undersigned considered plaintiff's motion to amend but found the proposed amended complaint deficient. Plaintiff was granted 45 days to file and serve a First Amended Complaint that complies with the requirements of the Civil Rights Act, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and the Local Rules of Practice. Plaintiff was instructed to identify in the caption of the amended complaint all 1 ORDER IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA PETER J.D. CLARK, SR., Plaintiff, No. CIV S-09-1452 GEB DAD PS

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

defendants against whom he now wishes to proceed. Plaintiff has not yet filed a First Amended Complaint pursuant to the court's order, and the identity of the defendants, if he chooses to proceed with this litigation, is unknown at this time. The pending motion is moot because the May 27, 2009 complaint has been dismissed. If plaintiff proceeds against the four defendants whose motion is the subject of this order, plaintiff shall consider defendants' arguments concerning deficient service of process and shall serve his First Amended Complaint in a manner that will establish the court's personal jurisdiction over the defendants if he did not effect proper service of his original complaint. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. The motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction or, in the alternative, to quash service of process brought by defendants Shigomoto, Parks, Cargile, and Romero, originally filed on September 21 and noticed for hearing before the assigned district judge (Doc. No. 37) and refiled on September 22, 2009, and noticed for hearing before the undersigned (Doc. No. 39), is denied as moot due to the dismissal of the complaint at issue in the motion. Denial of the motion is without prejudice to renewal if plaintiff names any of these individuals as defendants in a First Amended Complaint and the jurisdictional issue is not resolved by plaintiff's service of the amended pleading. 2. Defendants' motion is dropped from the October 30, 2009 calendar. DATED: October 13, 2009.

DAD:kw Ddad1/orders.prose/clark1452.mtdjurisd.ord

2