Singh et al v. Wells Fargo Bank

Filing 10

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 7/1/2016 ORDERING the Plaintiffs to SHOW CAUSE on 8/3/2016 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 8 (EFB) before Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan why this action should not be dismissed for failure to effect service of process. (Donati, J)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

RAJ SINGH, KAREN SINGH,

12
13
14

No. 2:15-cv-2664-JAM-EFB PS

Plaintiffs,
v.

ORDER

WELLS FARGO BANK,

15

Defendant.

16
17

On May 19, 2016, plaintiffs were ordered to show cause why this case should not be

18

dismissed for failure to effect service of process within the time prescribed by Federal Rule of

19

Civil Procedure 4(m).1 In response to the court’s order, plaintiffs submitted a proof of service,

20

indicating that on January 10, 2016, non-party Jason Smith delivered a copy of the summons and

21

complaint to John Stumpf, the president and CEO of Wells Fargo Bank, and Mr. Strumpf’s

22

assistant at 420 Montgomery Street, San Francisco, California. ECF No. 6 at 2.

23

Local Rule 210 provides that where “service of process is not waived, proof of service of

24

process shall be made by acknowledgment of the party served or by affidavit of the person

25

serving such process.” E.D. Cal. L.R. 210(b). That rule further provides that “[w]hen service is

26

made by personal delivery, it shall show the hour, the particular address or vicinity at which

27
28

1

At the time of that order, defendant Wells Fargo Bank had not made an appearance and
the docket did not reflect that defendant had been properly served.
1

1

service was made, the name and address of the person served, and the name and address of the

2

person making the service.” Id.; see Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(l).

3

The submitted proof of service fails to satisfy the requirements of Local Rule 210.

4

Although it identifies the address where service was purportedly made, it does not include the

5

hour for service, nor does it provide the names of all persons served. While it states that Jason

6

Smith delivered a copy of the summons and complaint to “John Stumpf, who is President and

7

CEO of wells fargo Bank [sic], and his assistant (ECF No. 6 at 2), it is not clear whether a copy of

8

the summons and complaint was personally delivered to Mr. Strumpf, or whether the documents

9

were merely left with some other person. If they were indeed left with an assistant or other

10

person, the proof of service must identify that person’s name. Furthermore, the proof of service

11

does not contain the address of Jason Smith, the individual that purportedly served defendant.

12

Accordingly, plaintiffs have failed to adequately demonstrate that defendant was properly

13

served. Plaintiffs are therefore order to appear before the court on August 3, 2016, at 10:00 a.m.

14

in Courtroom 8, to show cause why this action should not be dismissed for failure to effect

15

service of process in the time proscribed by Rule 4(m) and/or failure to comply with the court’s

16

local rules.

17

DATED: July 1, 2016.

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2