Weaver v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. et al
Filing
17
IGNORE - ORDER FILED IN INCORRECT CASE. (Filed on 9/14/2016) Modified on 9/14/2016 (mmclc2, COURT STAFF).
1
2
3
4
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7
JONATHAN WYCINSKY,
Plaintiff,
8
9
10
v.
CITY OF RICHMOND, et al.,
ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO
SHOW CAUSE WHY CLAIMS
AGAINST DEFENDANT MAGNUS
SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED
Defendants.
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
Case No. 16-cv-02873-MMC
12
13
On November 6, 2015, plaintiff filed the above-titled action in the Contra Costa
14
Superior Court, naming the City of Richmond and Christopher Magnus as defendants.
15
On May 27, 2016, the case was removed to the federal district court. To date, plaintiff
16
has not filed proof of service of the summons and complaint upon defendant Christopher
17
Magnus. “If a defendant is not served within 90 days after the complaint is filed, the court
18
– on motion or on its own after notice to the plaintiff – must dismiss the action without
19
prejudice against that defendant or order that service be made within a specified time,”
20
Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m), and where, as here, the complaint is removed from state court, the
21
ninety-day period runs from the date of removal, see 28 U.S.C. § 1448; Fed. R. Civ. P.
22
81(c)(1).
23
Accordingly, plaintiff is hereby ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE, in writing and no
24
later than September 28, 2016, why plaintiff’s claims against Christopher Magnus should
25
not be dismissed for failure to serve within the time required by Rule 4(m).
26
IT IS SO ORDERED.
27
Dated: September 14, 2016
28
MAXINE M. CHESNEY
United States District Judge
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?