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)

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