Ross v. Adam Associates et al
Filing
22
ORDER RE: SERVICE OF PROCESS (SI, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/6/2010)
Ross v. Adam Associates et al
Doc. 22
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 On June 15, 2010, the Court granted plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis and ordered the U.S. Marshal for the Northern District of California to serve, without prepayment of fees, a copy of the complaint, any amendments, scheduling orders, attachments, plaintiff's affidavit, and the June 15 order upon defendants. Doc. 4. On July 16, the U.S. Marshal returned the summonses as executed. Doc. 6. In response to an Order to Show Cause, defendants presented evidence to the Court that service upon each of the defendants was legally improper. Doc. 9. Defendants have now informed the Court that they have authorized BASHAM LAW GROUP to accept service of process on their behalf. Doc. 16. They have indicated that service can be made to: BASHAM LAW GROUP 701 University Avenue, Suite 220 Sacramento, California 95825 Id. Further, attorney Kelly Kern has informed the Court that service by mail will be accepted. Therefore, the Court hereby orders the Clerk of teh Court to mail a copy of the complaint, any v. ADAMS ASSOCIATES, et al., Defendants. / FRANCOIS ROSS, Plaintiff, No. C 10-02486 SI ORDER RE: SERVICE OF PROCESS IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Dockets.Justia.com
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
amendments, scheduling orders, attachments, plaintiff's affidavit, and this order upon defendants ADAMS ASSOCIATES, KELLY SNYDER, MARTHA DANIELS and LAURA PUTNAM at the above address.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: December 6, 2010
SUSAN ILLSTON United States District Judge
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?