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)
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
http://www.cand.uscourts.gov/sbaorders.
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?