Marotz v. City of San Francisco et al
Filing
40
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY CASE SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED AGAINST CERTAIN DEFENDANTS FOR FAILURE TO TIMELY SERVE. Show Cause Response due by 12/9/2013. Signed by Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu on 11/25/13. (dmrlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/25/2013)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
WILLIAM LEON MAROTZ,
12
13
Plaintiff(s),
v.
14
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY CASE
SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED
AGAINST CERTAIN DEFENDANTS
FOR FAILURE TO TIMELY SERVE
CITY OF SAN FRANCISCO ET AL,
15
No. C-13-01677 DMR
Defendant(s).
___________________________________/
16
17
On April 12, 2013, Defendant City of San Francisco removed this lawsuit to this court.
18
[Docket No. 1.] To date, the individually-named Defendants, the San Francisco Police Department,
19
and the San Francisco Sheriff’s Department have not appeared in this matter; it appears that none of
20
these Defendants have been properly served. Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
21
requires this court to dismiss the action without prejudice against these Defendants if they are not
22
served within 120 days after the complaint is filed. Accordingly, the court ORDERS Plaintiff to
23
respond by December 9, 2013 and explain why this case should not be dismissed for failure to
24
timely serve the above Defendants. Failure to respond by December 9, 2013 may result in dismissal
25
of this action without prejudice, with respect to the above Defendants.
26
27
28
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: November 25, 2013
DONNA M. RYU
United States Magistrate 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?