Pak et al v. Vigo Industries, LLC et al

Filing 13

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE: Show Cause Response due by 8/7/2014. Signed by Judge Maria-Elena James on 7/24/2014. (cdnS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/24/2014)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3
4

DAVID PAK, et al.,

Case No. 14-cv-02033-MEJ

Plaintiffs,
5
v.
6
7

VIGO INDUSTRIES, LLC, et al.,

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY
CLAIMS AGAINST DEFENDANT
SURPLUSDÉCOR.COM SHOULD NOT
BE DISMISSED

Defendants.
8
On December 23, 2013, Plaintiffs filed the instant complaint in San Mateo Superior Court.

9

Defendant Vigo Industries, LLC removed the case to this Court on May 2, 2014. Dkt. No. 1.

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

According to Vigo’s Notice of Removal, Defendant SURPLUSDÉCOR.COM is no longer a

12

functioning entity and it has not been served with the summons and complaint in this matter. To

13

date, Plaintiffs have not filed proof of service of the summons and complaint upon

14

SURPLUSDÉCOR.COM. “If a defendant is not served within 120 days after the complaint is

15

filed, the court – on motion or on its own after notice to the plaintiff – must dismiss the action

16

without prejudice against that defendant or order that service be made within a specified time.”

17

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

18

Accordingly, pursuant to Rule 4(m), Plaintiffs are hereby ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE,

19

in writing and no later than August 7, 2014, why the claims against the above identified Defendant

20

should not be dismissed for failure to serve within the time required by Rule 4(m). Notice is

21

hereby provided to Plaintiffs that the Court may dismiss said Defendant(s) if no responsive

22

declaration is filed. Thus, it is imperative that Plaintiffs file a written response by the deadline

23

above.

24

IT IS SO ORDERED.

25
26
27
28

Dated: July 24, 2014
______________________________________
MARIA-ELENA JAMES
United States Magistrate Judge