Carlon et al v. Taylor, Bean and Whitaker Mortgage Corporation, et al

Filing 17

ORDER to SHOW CAUSE signed by Judge John A. Mendez on 7/11/2011 ORDERING Plaintiffs are hereby ORDERED to show cause in writing, not to exceed 5 pages, why this action should not be dismissed as to Defendant Taylor, Bean & Whitaker Mortgage Company for pltfs' failure to timely serve Defendant; pltfs' response to this Court's order should be filed no later than 5:00 PM on 7/22/2011. (Reader, L)

Download PDF
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 18 19 JULIA M. CARLON, CHRISTINE M. CARLON, ) ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) ) TAYLOR, BEAN & WHITAKER MORTGAGE ) COMPANY, CENTRAL LOAN ) ADMINISTRATION AND REPORTING, ) OCWEN LOAN SERVICE, LLC, and ) DOES 1 through 100, ) ) Defendants. ) Case No. 2:11-CV-00499-JAM-GGH ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE REGARDING DISMISSAL OF CLAIMS AGAINST TAYLOR, BEAN & WHITAKER MORTGAGE COMPANY On January 18, 2011, Plaintiffs Julia Carlon and Christine 20 Carlon (“Plaintiffs”) filed a complaint against Defendant Taylor, 21 Bean & Whitaker Mortgage Company, which was subsequently removed to 22 this Court by another named defendant. 23 summons as to Defendant Taylor, Bean & Whitaker Mortgage Company 24 was returned unexecuted, indicating that CT Corp. did not have a 25 listing for Defendant, nor was CT Corp. the proper agent for 26 service. 27 Company has not been served. 28 On April 18, 2011, a To date, Defendant Taylor, Bean & Whitaker Mortgage Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m), the Court 1 1 must dismiss an action if a defendant has not been served within 2 120 days of a plaintiff’s filing of his or her complaint, unless a 3 plaintiff can demonstrate good cause for his or her failure to 4 serve the defendant. 5 in limited circumstances, and inadvertent error or ignorance of the 6 governing rules alone will not excuse a litigant’s failure to 7 effect timely service.” 8 (9th Cir. 1992) (discussing former subdivision 4(j)) (overruled on 9 other grounds); see also Glaser v. Bell Gardens, 28 F.3d 105 (9th 10 11 FED. R. CIV. P. 4(m). Good cause “applies only Hamilton v. Endell, 981 F.2d 1062, 1065 Cir. 1994). It has been well beyond 120 days since Plaintiffs’ complaint 12 was filed and Defendant Taylor, Bean & Whitaker Mortgage Company 13 has yet to be served. 14 to show cause in writing, not to exceed five (5) pages, why this 15 action should not be dismissed as to Defendant Taylor, Bean & 16 Whitaker Mortgage Company for Plaintiffs’ failure to timely serve 17 Defendant. 18 filed no later than 5:00 pm on July 22, 2011. Accordingly, Plaintiffs are hereby ordered Plaintiffs’ response to this Court’s order should be 19 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. 21 Dated: July 11, 2011 ____________________________ JOHN A. MENDEZ, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 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?