Singh et al v. Wells Fargo Bank

Filing 4

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 05/18/16 ORDERING that that plaintiffs shall SHOW CAUSE, in writing, within 14 days why this action should not be dismissed for failure to effect service of process; the Initial Scheduling Confer ence is RESET to 8/31/2016 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 8 (EFB) before Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan; not later than 14 days before the Initial Scheduling Conference, the parties shall file status reports in accordance with the Court's 3 12/23/15 order.(Benson, A)

Download PDF
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 Plaintiffs initiated this action against defendant Wells Fargo Bank on December 23, 2015. 18 ECF No. 1.1 To date, defendant has not appeared in this action. However, the court’s docket 19 does not reflect that defendant has been properly served as plaintiffs have not filed with the court 20 an executed summons with proof of service. 21 Accordingly, plaintiffs are order to show cause why this case should not be dismissed for 22 failure to effect service of process within the time prescribed by Rule 4(m). Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m); 23 E.D. Cal. L.R. 110 (“Failure of counsel or of a party to comply with these Rules or with any order 24 of the Court may be grounds for imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions authorized by 25 statute or Rule or within the inherent power of the Court.”); see also E.D. Cal. L.R. 183 (“Any 26 individual representing himself or herself without an attorney is bound by the Federal Rules of 27 28 1 This case, in which plaintiffs are proceeding pro se, is before the undersigned pursuant to Eastern District of California Local Rule 302(c)(21). See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 1 1 Civil or Criminal Procedure and by these Local Rules.”); Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th 2 Cir. 1995) (“Failure to follow a district court’s local rules is a proper ground for dismissal.”). 3 Failure to timely comply with this order may result in sanctions, including a recommendation that 4 this action be dismissed for lack of prosecution and/or for failure to follow court orders. 5 Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that: 6 1. Plaintiffs shall show cause, in writing, within fourteen days from the date of this order, 7 why this action should not be dismissed for failure to effect service of process within the time 8 prescribed by Rule 4(m); 9 2. Failure to comply with this order may result in the dismissal of this action for failure to 10 follow court orders, for failure to effect service of process with the time prescribed by Rule 4(m), 11 and/or for lack of prosecution under Rule 41(b); and 12 3. The Initial Scheduling Conference is continued to August 31, 2016. Not later than 13 fourteen days before the Initial Scheduling Conference, the parties shall file status reports in 14 accordance with the court’s December 23, 2015 order. See ECF No. 3. 15 DATED: May 18, 2016. 16 17 18 19 20 21 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?