Miyasaki v. Treacy et al

Filing 27

THIRD ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE: Order to Show Cause Hearing set for 11/13/2014 10:00 AM. Show Cause Response due by 11/3/2014. Signed by Judge Maria-Elena James on 10/22/2014. (cdnS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/22/2014)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 MARGARET EVE-LYNNE MIYASAKI, Case No. 12-cv-04427-MEJ Plaintiff, 8 v. THIRD ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 9 10 KYNA TREACY, et al., Defendants. United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 13 On June 30, 2014, Plaintiff Margaret Eve-Lynne Miyasaki filed her Seventh Status Report, 14 indicating that she was still attempting to effect service of process on Defendant, a citizen of 15 Australia. Dkt. No. 26. This case has now been pending for over two years, and it appears that 16 Plaintiff has not been diligent in her attempts to serve Defendant. For example, in the most recent 17 status report, Plaintiff states that she “intends to file a motion to permit alternative service on 18 defendant shortly.” However, nearly four months have passed since she made that statement, yet 19 no further docket activity has taken place. 20 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) imposes a 120-day time limit on domestic service 21 but does not set a time limit for completing service on a defendant who resides outside of the 22 United States. See Lucas v. Natoli, 936 F.2d 432, 432 (9th Cir. 1991). The Ninth Circuit has 23 never specifically imposed any time limit on serving a foreign defendant. However, other circuits 24 have held that “the amount of time allowed for foreign service is not unlimited.” Nylok Corp. v. 25 Fastener World Inc., 396 F.3d 805, 807 (7th Cir. 2005); see also Feliz v. MacNeill, 493 Fed. 26 App’x 128, 131 (1st Cir. 2012) (“[C]ourts have leave to dismiss for failure to serve abroad when a 27 plaintiff is dilatory.”). 28 Accordingly, given that this case has now been pending for over two years, and Plaintiff 1 has not followed through on her statements regarding service, the Court hereby ORDERS Plaintiff 2 Margaret Eve-Lynne Miyasaki to show cause why this case should not be dismissed for failure to 3 prosecute. Plaintiff shall file a declaration by November 3, 2014. If a responsive declaration is 4 filed, the Court shall either issue an order based on the declaration or conduct a hearing on 5 November 13, 2014 at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom B, 15th Floor, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San 6 Francisco, California. Notice is hereby provided to Plaintiff that the Court may dismiss the case 7 without a hearing if no responsive declaration is filed. Thus, it is imperative that Plaintiff file a 8 written response by the deadline above. 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 13 Dated: October 22, 2014 ______________________________________ MARIA-ELENA JAMES United States Magistrate Judge 14 15 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?