Singh v. County of Sacramento et al

Filing 24

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Deborah Barnes on 9/25/18 DENYING 18 Motion for Default Judgment, VACATING 19 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS and GRANTING 22 Motion for Reconsideration. Each plaintiff shall appear in person for a hearing re service of process set for 11/16/2018 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 27 (DB) before Magistrate Judge Deborah Barnes. (Kaminski, H)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

RON SINGH and KAREN SINGH,

12

Plaintiffs,

13
14

No. 2:17-cv-2580 TLN DB PS

v.
COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, et al.,

15

ORDER

Defendants.

16
Plaintiffs Ron Singh and Karen Singh are proceeding pro se. The case has been referred

17
18

to the undersigned pursuant to Local Rule 302(c)(21). Plaintiffs’ complaint alleges generally that

19

defendants’ enforcement of municipal codes violated plaintiffs’ constitutional rights.
On February 12, 2018, the undersigned issued an order setting this matter for a March 23,

20
21

2018 Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Conference. (ECF No. 4.) On February 22, 2018, plaintiffs

22

filed a purported proof of service on the defendants. (ECF No. 6.) On March 27, 2018, the

23

undersigned issued an order granting plaintiffs’ request to continue the status conference to May

24

25, 2018. (ECF No. 9.) Plaintiffs were also ordered to file proof of service of that order on the

25

defendants within 19 days. (Id. at 2.) Plaintiffs, however, failed to comply with the

26

undersigned’s order and did not file proof of service of the March 27, 2018 order on the

27

defendants.

28

////
1

1

Accordingly, on May 17, 2018, the undersigned issued to plaintiffs an order to show

2

cause. (ECF No. 16.) Therein, the undersigned advised plaintiffs of their failure to comply with

3

the March 27, 2018 order. (Id. at 1.) The order also advised plaintiffs that it appeared from the

4

purported proof of service that plaintiffs failed to comply with Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of

5

Civil Procedure, California Code of Civil Procedure § 416.50, and with Local Rule 210(b). (Id.

6

at 1-2.)

7

The order to show cause ordered plaintiffs to show cause in writing within fourteen days

8

as to why plaintiffs should not be sanctioned for failing to comply with March 27, 2018 order.

9

(Id. at 2.) Plaintiffs were also ordered to serve upon each defendant one copy of May 17, 2018

10

order and, within five days, file a certificate of service that included the name of the person

11

served, the address of the person served, and the date and manner of service of the copy on the

12

defendants. (Id.)

13

On June 15, 2018, plaintiffs filed an updated status report and a motion for default

14

judgment.1 (ECF Nos. 17 & 18.) The purported proofs of service filed in connection with those

15

documents evidenced that plaintiffs continued to fail to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil

16

Procedure, the California Code of Civil Procedure, and the Local Rules. (ECF No. 17 at 2; ECF

17

No. 18 at 4.) Moreover, plaintiffs failed to comply with the undersigned’s May 17, 2018 order.

18

Therefore, on June 19, 2018, the undersigned issued findings and recommendations,

19

recommending that this action be dismissed without prejudice due to plaintiffs’ failure to

20

prosecute. (ECF No. 19.) However, that same day an updated response to the order to show

21

cause and another purported proof of service from plaintiffs was entered on the court’s docket.

22

(ECF Nos. 20 & 21.) Moreover, on July 3, 2018, plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration and

23

objections to the June 19, 2018 findings and recommendations. (ECF Nos. 22 & 23.)

24

The gist of plaintiffs’ new filings is that plaintiffs believe they have properly served the

25

defendants in this action. Based on these representations, the undersigned will grant plaintiffs’

26

motion for reconsideration. The undersigned, however, continues to have concerns about

27
28

Plaintiffs’ motion for default judgment was not noticed for hearing before the undersigned as
required by Local Rule 230.
1

2

1

plaintiffs’ purported service on the defendants. Specifically, plaintiffs’ proofs of service are

2

executed by a Scott Smith who resides at 1200 North B Street, Sacramento, CA 95814. (ECF No.

3

6 at 1; ECF No. 12 at 1; ECF No. 21 at 1.)

4

In Raj Singh, Karen Singh v. Wells Fargo Bank, No. 2:15-cv-2664 JAM EFB PS, the

5

magistrate judge in that action noted, in addressing purported service by a Jason Smith, that this

6

address is the address for the Salvation Army Shelter Services Center. Singh v. Wells Fargo

7

Bank, No. 2:15-cv-2664 JAM EFB PS (E.D. Cal. Aug. 1, 2016). The magistrate judge in that

8

action required the plaintiffs in that action to produce Jason Smith for a hearing regarding the

9

purported service of process. (Id.) It appears from the docket in that action that the plaintiffs in

10

that action were unable to produce Jason Smith, but were able to effect proper service after

11

utilizing another process server.

12

Here, the undersigned will order plaintiffs to produce Scott Smith. Also, given some of

13

the similarities between this action and the Wells Fargo matter discussed above, plaintiffs will be

14

ordered to provide the court with a list of any current or former actions involving either plaintiff,

15

under any name, filed in this court.

16

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

17

1. Plaintiffs’ June 15, 2018 motion for default judgment (ECF No. 18) is denied without

18

prejudice to renewal;

19

2. The June 19, 2018 findings and recommendations (ECF No. 19) are vacated;

20

3. Plaintiffs’ July 3, 2018 motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 22) is granted;

21

4. Each plaintiff shall appear in person for a hearing regarding service of process on the

22

defendants on Friday, November 16, 2018, at 10:00 a.m. at the United States District Court, 501

23

I Street, Sacramento, California, in Courtroom No. 27 before the undersigned;

24

5. Plaintiffs shall produce Scott Smith at the November 16, 2018 hearing;

25

6. Plaintiffs are granted an extension of time to serve defendants and shall complete

26
27
28

service on or before October 26, 2016;
7. On or before October 12, 2018, plaintiff shall serve a copy of this order on the
defendants and shall file a proof of service of this order that includes the name of the person
3

1

served, the address of the person served, the date and manner of the service, as well as the name

2

and address of the person effecting the service; and

3
4

8. On or before October 12, 2018, plaintiffs shall file a document listing all cases, past
and present, involving either plaintiff filed in this court.

5
Dated: September 25, 2018
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23

DLB:6
DB/orders/orders.pro se/singh2580.serv.hrg.ord

24
25
26
27
28
4