Costelo et al v. Pro30 Funding et al

Filing 4

ORDER to SHOW CAUSE signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 9/28/12 ORDERING that the status conference currently scheduled for 10/10/12, is reset for 11/28/12, at 10:00 a.m., in Courtroom # 24; Plaintiffs shall show cause, in writing, on or before 11/7/12, why sanctions should not be imposed for failure to follow court orders and Local Rules; Also by 11/7/12, plaintiffs shall file a proof of timely service on defendants, or shall show cause, in writing, why any unserved defendants s hould not be dismissed for failure to effect service of process within the time prescribed by Rule 4(m); Also by 11/7/12, the parties shall file status reports (or a joint status report) setting forth the matters referenced in the court's 5/29/12 order, including the status of service of process. (Becknal, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

CELSO COSTELO;
MARIA S. COLMENARES-PRATT,

11
Plaintiffs,

No. 2:12-cv-1429-JAM-EFB PS

12
vs.
13
PRO 30 FUNDING, et al.,
14
15
16

Defendants.
_________________________________/

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

This case is before the undersigned pursuant to Eastern District of California Local Rule

17

302(c)(21). See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). On May 29, 2012, plaintiffs filed a complaint in this

18

action and paid the filing fee. Dckt. No. 1. The same day, the court issued its initial scheduling

19

order. Dckt. No. 3. That order directed plaintiffs to complete service of process within 120 days

20

(see Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 4(m)), and set a scheduling conference for

21

October 10, 2012. Id. The order further directed the parties to file status reports no later than

22

fourteen days prior to the October 10, 2012 scheduling conference (or by September 26, 2012),

23

and cautioned the parties that failure to obey the federal or local rules or orders of the court

24

could result in sanctions, including a recommendation that the case be dismissed. Id.

25
26

The court file reveals that plaintiffs have not filed a status report, as required by the May
29, 2012 order, and that plaintiffs have not yet effected service of process on defendants.
1

1

Accordingly, the status conference will be continued and plaintiffs will be ordered to show cause

2

why this case should not be dismissed for failure to follow this court’s orders and Local Rules

3

and/or for failure to effect service of process within the time prescribed by Rule 4(m). Fed. R.

4

Civ. P. 4(m); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(l)(1) (requiring that proof of service be made to the

5

court); E.D. Cal. L.R. 210(b) (same); E.D. Cal. L.R. 110 (“Failure of counsel or of a party to

6

comply with these Rules or with any order of the Court may be grounds for imposition by the

7

Court of any and all sanctions authorized by statute or Rule or within the inherent power of the

8

Court.”); E.D. Cal. L.R. 183 (“Any individual representing himself or herself without an attorney

9

is bound by the Federal Rules of Civil or Criminal Procedure and by these Local Rules.”);

10

Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995) (“Failure to follow a district court’s local rules

11

is a proper ground for dismissal.”). Failure to timely comply with this order may result in

12

sanctions, including a recommendation that this action be dismissed for lack of prosecution, for

13

failure to follow this court’s orders and Local Rules, and/or for failure to effect service of

14

process within the time prescribed by Rule 4(m).

15

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

16

1. The status conference currently scheduled for October 10, 2012, is rescheduled for

17

November 28, 2012, at 10:00 a.m., in Courtroom No. 24.

18
19

2. Plaintiffs shall show cause, in writing, on or before November 7, 2012, why sanctions
should not be imposed for failure to follow court orders and Local Rules.

20

3. Also by November 7, 2012, plaintiffs shall file a proof of timely service on

21

defendants, or shall show cause, in writing, why any unserved defendants should not be

22

dismissed for failure to effect service of process within the time prescribed by Rule 4(m).

23

4. Also by November 7, 2012, the parties shall file status reports (or a joint status report)

24

setting forth the matters referenced in the court’s May 29, 2012 order, including the status of

25

service of process.

26

////
2

1

5. Failure of plaintiffs to comply with this order may result in a recommendation that this

2

action be dismissed for failure to follow court orders and this court’s Local Rules, for failure to

3

effect service of process within the time prescribed by Rule 4(m), and/or for lack of prosecution

4

under Rule 41(b).

5

SO ORDERED.

6

DATED: September 28, 2012.

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