Hollowell v. Select Portfolio Servicing Center

Filing 34

ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO SHOW CAUSE WHY CLAIMS AGAINST UNSERVED DEFENDANTS SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED. Plaintiff is ordered to show cause, in writing and no later than July 1, 2011, why plaintiff's claims against MERS and Quality should not be dismissed for failure to serve within the time required by Rule 4(m).Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on June 22, 2011. (mmclc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/22/2011)

1
2
3
4
5
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
6
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8
9
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10
11
12

CHRISTIE HOLLOWELL,
Plaintiff,

ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO
SHOW CAUSE WHY CLAIMS AGAINST
UNSERVED DEFENDANTS SHOULD
NOT BE DISMISSED

v.
ALLIANCE BANCORP, INC., et al.,
Defendants.

13
14

No. 10-1658 MMC

/

“If a defendant is not served within 120 days after the complaint is filed, the court –

15

on motion or on its own after notice to the plaintiff – must dismiss the action without

16

prejudice against that defendant or order that service be made within a specified time.”

17

Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m).

18

On February 18, 2011, plaintiff filed her First Amended Complaint (“FAC”), naming

19

therein the following two additional defendants: Mortgage Electronic Registration System,

20

Inc. (“MERS”) and Quality Loan Services Corporation (“Quality”). To date, plaintiff has not

21

filed proof of service of the summons and FAC upon either MERS or Quality. Pursuant to

22

Rule 4(m), plaintiff is hereby ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE, in writing and no later than

23

July 1, 2011, why plaintiff’s claims against MERS and Quality should not be dismissed for

24

failure to serve within the time required by Rule 4(m).

25

IT IS SO ORDERED.

26
27
28

Dated: June 22, 2011
MAXINE M. CHESNEY
United States District Judge