Weartherwax v. Takata Corporation et al

Filing 10

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE; Show Cause Response due by 9/15/2016. Signed by Judge Maria-Elena James on 9/7/2016. (mejlc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/7/2016)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

ROSEANA WEARTHERWAX,

Case No. 16-cv-02408-MEJ

Plaintiff,
8

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

v.
9
10

TAKATA CORPORATION, et al.,
Defendants.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

On May 3, 2016, Plaintiff Roseana Weartherwax filed the instant complaint. Dkt. No. 1.

14

To date, no proof of service of the summons and complaint has been filed; the only indication

15

service has even been attempted is a June 3, 2016 filing showing that the summons was returned

16

unexecuted. See Dkt. No. 8. This matter was scheduled for a Case Management Conference on

17

August 4, 2016, but as there was no indication Defendants had been served and Plaintiff failed to

18

file any statement or status report of her own, the Court vacated the Conference and ordered

19

Plaintiff to file a status report by August 11, 2016. Dkt. No. 9. As of the date of this Order, the

20

Court as not received any response from Plaintiff.

21

“If a defendant is not served within 90 days after the complaint is filed, the court – on

22

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

23

against that defendant or order that service be made within a specified time.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m).

24

Accordingly, pursuant to Rule 4(m), and given Plaintiff’s failure to comply with Court Orders, the

25

Court ORDERS Plaintiff to show cause, in writing and no later than September 15, 2016, why

26

this case should not be dismissed for failure to serve within the time required by Rule 4(m) and

27

failure to comply with this Court’s Orders. Notice is hereby provided that failure to file a written

28

response will be deemed an admission that Plaintiff does not intend to prosecute, and the case will

1

be dismissed without prejudice. Thus, it is imperative that the Court receive a written response by

2

the deadline above.

3

IT IS SO ORDERED.

4
5
6
7

Dated: September 7, 2016
______________________________________
MARIA-ELENA JAMES
United States Magistrate Judge

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2