Solis v. Target Corporation

Filing 80

ORDER signed by District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 06/07/16 ordering On May 5, 2016, the court ordered plaintiff to show cause why the court shouldnot dismiss the Doe defendants. 77 Plaintiff has not responded to the courts order.The court construes plaintiffs lack of response as a concession, and therefore DISMISSES theunnamed defendants under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m). (Plummer, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

JAVIER SOLIS,

12
13
14
15
16

No. 2:14-cv-00686-KJM-AC
Plaintiff,

v.

ORDER

TARGET CORPORATION, a corporation,
and DOES 1-100, inclusive,
Defendants.

17
18

On May 5, 2016, the court ordered plaintiff to show cause why the court should

19

not dismiss the “Doe” defendants. ECF No. 77. Plaintiff has not responded to the court’s order.

20

The court construes plaintiff’s lack of response as a concession, and therefore DISMISSES the

21

unnamed defendants under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m). See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m)

22

(providing for dismissal of defendants not served within ninety days of filing of the complaint

23

unless the plaintiff shows good cause); see also Glass v. Fields, No. 1:09-00098, 2011 U.S. Dist.

24

LEXIS 97604 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 31, 2011); Hard Drive Prods. v. Does, No. 11-01567, 2011 U.S.

25

Dist. LEXIS 109837, at *2–4 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 27, 2011).

26
27

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: June 7, 2016

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

28
1