Immersa Marketing, Inc. v. Hucom Communications, Ltd et al

Filing 14

CONTINUING CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE AND SETTING DEADLINE FORSERVICE OF PROCESS. Case Management Statement due by 1/22/2014. Telephonic Case Management Conference set for 1/29/2014 03:00 PM. Signed by Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong on 12/5/2013. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/5/2013)

Download PDF
1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 OAKLAND DIVISION 4 5 IMMERSA MARKETING, INC., SUCCESSOR IN INTEREST TO THE 6 CHASE GROUP LLC D/B/A IMMERSA MARKETING, 7 Plaintiff, Case No: C 13-1859 SBA ORDER CONTINUING CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE AND SETTING DEADLINE FOR SERVICE OF PROCESS 8 vs. 9 HUCOM COMMUNICATIONS, LTD., et 10 al., 11 Defendants. 12 13 Plaintiff filed the instant action in this Court on April 23, 2013, against various 14 Defendants, all of which apparently are foreign sovereigns, individuals and entities. In its 15 Case Management Statement filed on December 4, 2013, Plaintiff states that it has not yet 16 served any of the Defendants, and requests that the Court impose a deadline in December 17 2013 to complete service. Dkt. 13 at 2. In addition, Plaintiff requests that the Court 18 continue the Case Management Conference currently scheduled for December 11, 2013, for 19 a period of 30 to 60 days to allow for settlement discussions. Id. at 4. 20 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m), which governs the time limit for service, 21 provides: “If a defendant is not served within 120 days after the complained is filed, the 22 court—on motion or on its own after notice to the plaintiff—must dismiss the action 23 without prejudice against that defendant or order that service be made within a specified 24 time.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). This time limit, however, does not apply to service in a foreign 25 country. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m) (“This subdivision (m) does not apply to service in a 26 foreign country under Rule 4(f) or 4(j)(1).”); see also Lucas v. Natoli, 936 F.2d 432, 432 27 (9th Cir. 1991) (“[T]he plain language of [Rule 4(m) ] makes the 120-day service provision 28 inapplicable to service in a foreign country . . . .”). “[A]lthough the 120-day service period 1 set forth Rule 4(m) does not apply to service of process on an individual or corporation in a 2 foreign country, the court is not precluded from setting a reasonable time limit for service 3 in a foreign country so that it can properly manage a civil case.” Karimi v. Poker Media 4 Systems SAS, No. No. 2:13-cv-01250-JCM-NJK, 2013 WL 4048578, *2 (D. Nev. Aug. 8, 5 2013) (footnote omitted). Thus, pursuant to Plaintiff’s request, the Court orders to Plaintiff 6 to serve Defendants and file corresponding proofs of service by no later than December 31, 7 2013. Accordingly, 8 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: 9 1. The Case Management Conference scheduled for December 11, 2013, is 10 CONTINUED to January 29, 2014 at 3:00 p.m. At least seven (7) calendar days prior to 11 the Case Management Conference, the parties shall meet and confer and file a Joint Case 12 Management Conference Statement that complies with the Standing Order for All Judges of 13 the Northern District of California and the Standing Orders of this Court. See 14 15 2. Plaintiff’s counsel shall be responsible for filing the Joint Case Management 16 Statement and setting up the conference call. At the date and time indicated above, 17 Plaintiff’s counsel shall call (510) 637-3559 with all parties on the line. NO PARTY 18 SHALL OTHERWISE CONTACT CHAMBERS DIRECTLY WITHOUT PRIOR 19 AUTHORIZATION OF THE COURT. 20 3. Plaintiff shall serve Defendants and file corresponding proofs of service by 21 no later than December 31, 2013. The failure to comply with this Order may result in the 22 dismissal of the action. Plaintiff shall serve a copy of this Order on Defendants. 23 24 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: December 5, 2013 _____________________________ SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG United States District Judge 25 26 27 28 -2-

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?