Kaselitz et al v. Hisoft Technology International, Ltd et al

Filing 44

ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFFS TO SHOW CAUSE WHY CLAIMS AGAINST TIAK KOON LOH SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO SERVE; VACATING MAY 17, 2013 CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE. Plaintiffs are ordered to show cause, in writing and no later than May 28, 2013, why plaintiffs' claims against Tiak Koon Loh should not be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Rule 4(m). Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on May 14, 2013. (mmclc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/14/2013)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10
11

ALANA KASELITZ, an individual; and
MELISSA KASELITZ, an individual,

No. C-12-5760 MMC
ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFFS TO
SHOW CAUSE WHY CLAIMS AGAINST
TIAK KOON LOH SHOULD NOT BE
DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO SERVE;
VACATING MAY 17, 2013 CASE
MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

12
Plaintiffs,
13
14
15
16

v.
HISOFT TECHNOLOGY INTERNATIONAL,
LTD., a Cayman Islands exempt company;
and TIAK KOON LOH, an individual,
Defendants.

/

17
18
19
20

Before the Court is defendant hiSoft Technology International, Ltd.’s (“hiSoft
Technology”) Case Management Statement, filed May 10, 2013.
In its statement, hiSoft states that plaintiffs, in conformity with the Court’s order of

21

February 15, 2013, instituted arbitration proceedings against hiSoft. Further, according to

22

hiSoft, plaintiffs have not served defendant Tiak Koon Loh (“Loh”) with the summons and

23

complaint, but did name him as a party to the arbitration proceedings.

24

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

25

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

26

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

27

Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). Where, as here, a complaint is removed from state court, the 120-day

28

period runs from the date of removal. See 28 U.S.C. § 1448; Fed. R. Civ. P. 81(c)(1).

1
2
3

The instant action was removed on November 9, 2012, and, to date, plaintiffs have
not filed proof they have served the summons and complaint on Loh.
Accordingly, plaintiffs are hereby ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE, in writing and no

4

later than May 28, 2013, why plaintiffs’ claims against Loh should not be dismissed without

5

prejudice pursuant to Rule 4(m).

6
7
8

In light of the above, the May 17, 2013 Case Management Conference is hereby
VACATED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

9
10

Dated: May 14, 2013
MAXINE M. CHESNEY
United States District Judge

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2