Johnson v. MCM, LLC

Filing 9

ORDER signed by District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 4/11/2017 ORDERING plaintiff to SHOW CAUSE, within fourteen (14) days, why the court should not dismiss this case for failure to prosecute. (Zignago, K.)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

SCOTT JOHNSON,

12
13
14
15
16

No. 2:16-CV-01572-KJM-EFB

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER

MCM, LLC, a California
Limited Liability Company; and
Does 1-10,
Defendants.

17
18
Plaintiff sued a California limited liability company and ten unnamed individuals,
19
claiming their parking lot does not comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”).
20
Plaintiff filed this action on July 10, 2016, but has yet to properly serve the defendants. On
21
November 2, 2016, plaintiff requested to continue the initial scheduling conference, claiming he
22
had tried several times to serve defendants, but to no avail. ECF No. 4. The court granted his
23
request. ECF No. 5.
24
Then on December 29, 2016, plaintiff again requested to continue the status
25
conference for the same reason. ECF No. 6. To support this request, plaintiff filed two lists of
26
alleged personal service attempts. Exs. A & B, ECF No. 6. These lists reflect that Jason Kendle,
27
on plaintiff’s behalf, tried several times to serve defendant MCM’s agent, Cindy Yang, at two
28
1

1

addresses in Morgan Hill and one in Saratoga, California. According to Kendle, nobody ever

2

answered the door. See id. Plaintiff does not explain where he got the addresses or why two

3

separate addresses are labeled as Cindy Yang’s “home.” Plaintiff also does not explain what he

4

would do should the court grant his most recent continuation request to advance his attempts at

5

service. His thirty-two unsuccessful service attempts thus far previously warranted such an

6

explanation. Finding no good cause, the court denied this second request. ECF No. 7. The court

7

nonetheless vacated the scheduling conference sua sponte, because no defendant had yet been

8

served. ECF No. 8.

9

Now, three months later, plaintiff has taken no further action in this case. The

10

court therefore ORDERS plaintiff to show cause, within fourteen (14) days, why the court should

11

not dismiss this case for failure to prosecute.

12
13

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: April 11, 2017.

14
15

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2