Laygo et al v. World Savings Bank et al

Filing 14

ORDER DISMISSING CASE; ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION. Signed by Judge Hamilton on 3/28/2013. (pjhlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/28/2013)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8
9

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10
ANDREA C. LAYGO, et al.

12

Plaintiffs,

13

v.

14

WORLD SAVINGS BANK, et al.,

15

No. C 12-5531 PJH
ORDER DISMISSING CASE; ORDER
ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Defendants.
_______________________________/

16
17

Plaintiffs filed the complaint in the above-entitled action on October 26, 2013. No

18

summons was issued at that time, or thereafter. On December 26, 2013, mail sent to

19

plaintiffs was returned to the court as undeliverable. Again, on January 15, 2013, and

20

January 17, 2013, mail sent to plaintiffs was returned as undeliverable.

21

On March 5, 2013, Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler (to whom the case was then

22

assigned), issued an order to show cause why the case should not be dismissed for failure

23

to prosecute, given plaintiffs’ failure to provide any proof of service of the summons and

24

complaint on defendants within the 120 days allowed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

25

4(m).

26

Plaintiffs did not respond to the order to show cause, and on March 28, 2013, Judge

27

Beeler issued a report and recommendation, recommending that the case be dismissed for

28

failure to prosecute. Also on March 28, 2013, the case was reassigned to the undersigned

1
2

district judge.
The court has reviewed the report, and finds it correct, well-reasoned and thorough,

3

and adopts it in every respect. Accordingly, the case is DISMISSED, without prejudice, for

4

failure to prosecute. As a further basis for dismissal, the court finds that the case must be

5

dismissed based on plaintiffs' failure to provide the court with a correct address. See Civ.

6

L.R. 3-11.

7

In view of the fact that no summons was issued (and that defendants thus cannot

8

have been properly served), and the fact that all mail sent to plaintiffs has been returned to

9

the court as undeliverable, the court finds it unnecessary to delay issuing this order until
after the 14 days allowed under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) for parties to file objections to a

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

magistrate judge's report and recommendation.

12
13

IT IS SO ORDERED.

14

Dated: March 28, 2013
______________________________
PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON
United States District Judge

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2