Missud v. San Francisco Superior Court et al

Filing 14

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE, Motions terminated: 11 First MOTION to Compel Substantive Reconsideration by the San Francisco Superior Court of Judge Woolard's October 26, 2010 Order filed by Patrick A. Missud, 9 MOTION to Compel filed by Patrick A. Missud. Order to Show Cause Hearing set for 10/5/2011 09:00 AM. Show Cause Response due by 9/16/2011.. Signed by Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton on 8/19/2011. (hlk, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/19/2011)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8
PATRICK MISSUD,
9
Plaintiff,

No. C 11-1856 PJH

v.

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12

SAN FRANCISCO SUPERIOR COURT,
et al.,

13

Defendants.
_______________________________/

14
15

TO PLAINTIFF PATRICK MISSUD:

16

YOU ARE HEREBY ORDERED TO APPEAR ON OCTOBER 5, 2011, AND SHOW

17

CAUSE why the above-entitled action should not be dismissed pursuant to Federal Rule of

18

Civil Procedure 41(b) for failure to prosecute.

19

Plaintiff, an attorney representing himself, filed the complaint on April 18, 2011,

20

against San Francisco Superior Court, Judge Charlotte Woolard, Court Approved Mediator

21

Michael Carbone, ADR Services Inc., and Does 1 through 200.

22

On July 18, 2011, plaintiff filed a case management statement in which he stated

23

that “the summons for this case has never been issued nor served, and therefore the

24

Defendants have not appeared, participated in discovery, met, or conferred with the

25

Plaintiff.” Doc. no. 7 at 1. Plaintiff requested that the initial case management conference

26

set for July 28, 2011, be continued “to allow for either: the filing of a first amended

27

complaint, or service of the original complaint.” Id. at 3. The court continued the case

28

management conference to September 15, 2011. Doc. no. 8.

1

More than 120 days have passed since plaintiff filed the complaint. It appears from

2

the docket, however, that plaintiff has not presented to the clerk a summons for issuance,

3

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“FRCP”) 4(b). Further, no proof of service has

4

been made to the court pursuant to FRCP 4(l).

5

Under FRCP 4(m), the court must dismiss an action if the defendant is not served

6

within 120 days after the complaint is filed, unless “the plaintiff shows good cause for the

7

failure,” in which case the court “must extend the time for service for an appropriate period.”

8

Here, the complaint was filed more than 120 days ago, and the defendants still have not

9

been served. Therefore, plaintiff Patrick A. Missud IS HEREBY ORDERED TO SHOW
CAUSE IN WRITING why this action should not be dismissed for the failure to serve

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

defendants within 120 days of filing the complaint.

12

Plaintiff must file a written response to the order to show cause by September 16,

13

2011. Failure to respond to this show cause order may result in the dismissal of this action

14

pursuant to FRCP 4(m) and 41(b). Plaintiff may not serve defendants without first showing

15

good cause for failing to comply with the time limit for service pursuant to FRCP 4(m).

16

The hearing on the order to show cause will be held on October 5, 2011, at 9:00

17

a.m., in Courtroom 3, 3rd Floor, Federal Building, 1301 Clay Street, Oakland, California.

18

The case management conference set for September 15, 2011 is hereby vacated.

19

Plaintiff has filed motions to compel reconsideration of an order of the superior court.

20

Doc. nos. 9, 11. Those motions are DENIED for failure to serve and notice the motions

21

pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-2.

22

IT IS SO ORDERED.

23
24

Dated: August 19, 2011
______________________________
PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON
United States District Judge

25
26
27
28
2