Patel et al v. Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. et al

Filing 43

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE Show Cause Response due by 11/13/2013 at 5:00 p.m.. Signed by Judge Kandis A. Westmore on November 6, 2013. (kawlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/6/2013)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5
6
7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

SANGITA R. PATEL, et al.,

Case No.: 3:13-cv-1874 KAW

Plaintiffs,

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY
DEFENDANT U.S. BANK, N.A. SHOULD
NOT BE DISMISSED PURSUANT TO
FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE
4(m)

v.
MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC
REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC., et al.,
Defendants.

12
13

Sangita R. Patel and Rajendra G. Patel ("Plaintiffs") commenced this action in Alameda
14

Superior Court on March 26, 2013. Defendants Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc.
15

("MERS") and CitiMortgage, Inc. ("Citi") removed the case to federal court on April 24, 2013.
16

Plaintiffs attempted to effect service on U.S. Bank, N.A. ("US Bank") on October 30, 2013. No
17

federal summons has been issued in this case.
18

On October 29, 2013, the court held an initial case management conference ("CMC") in
19

the above-captioned case. Attorney Michael Yesk appeared on behalf of the Plaintiffs. During
20

the CMC, the court noted that Plaintiffs had not yet served U.S. Bank, a named defendant in this
21

action. The court also noted that the 120-day period for serving the summons and complaint had
22

elapsed. See 28 U.S.C. § 1448 ("In all cases removed from any State court to any district court of
23

the United States in which any one or more of the defendants has not been served with process . . .
24

such process or service may be completed or new process issued in the same manner as in cases
25

originally filed in such district court."); FED. R. CIV. P. 4(m) ("If a defendant is not served within
26

120 days after the complaint is filed, the court—on motion or on its own after notice to the
27

plaintiff—must dismiss the action without prejudice against that defendant . . . .").
28

1

1

The court advised Mr. Yesk that it would not likely grant Plaintiffs leave to serve U.S.

2

Bank given that service would be untimely. The court also instructed Mr. Yesk to file a statement

3

indicating his intent to serve U.S. Bank and stating the reasons why the court should allow service

4

of the summons and complaint at this point in the case. Notwithstanding the court's specific

5

instructions, Mr. Yesk filed a certificate of service showing that a copy of a "[s]ummons,

6

[c]omplaint, and [n]otice of CMC" was mailed to U.S. Bank on October 30, 2013, the day after

7

the CMC. As of the date of this order, Mr. Yesk has not filed the required statement.

8

The court hereby orders the Plaintiffs to show cause why the court should not dismiss this

9

action as against U.S. Bank pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m). Plaintiffs shall file
a written response to this order to show cause. In the written response, the following must be

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

addressed:

12

(1) Plaintiffs shall explain why service on U.S. Bank is not defective given that no federal

13

summons has been issued in this case. See Beecher v. Wallace, 381 F.2d 372, 373

14

(9th Cir. 1976) (where a defendant has not been served prior to removal, the

15

originally-issued state court summons cannot be used to effect service, a federal

16

summons must be issued pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4).

17

(2) Plaintiffs shall address whether service on U.S. Bank is insufficient as outside the

18

applicable 120-day period. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m); Wallace v. Microsoft Corp., 596

19

F.3d 703, 707 (10 Cir. 2010) (120-day period begins to run from the date of removal);

20

Cowen v. Am. Med. Sys., 411 F. Supp. 2d 717, 721 (E.D. Mich. 2006) ("For cases

21

originally filed in federal court, Rule 4(m) permits service within 120 days after filing

22

the complaint. However, in a case removed from state court, the time begins to run on

23

the date of removal.") (citations omitted).

24

(3) Plaintiffs shall give the reasons, if any, constituting good cause for an extension of

25

time to serve the appropriate summons and complaint. See Hason v. Med. Bd. of Cal.,

26

279 F.3d 1167, 1174 (9th Cir. 2002) ("Rule 4(m) provides that, if process is not served

27

within 120 days after the filing of the complaint, and the plaintiff cannot show good

28

2

1

cause why service was not made within that time, the action is subject to dismissal

2

without prejudice upon the court's own initiative with notice to the plaintiff.").

3

Plaintiffs shall file a written response to this order to show cause no later than Wednesday,

4

November 13, 2013 at 5:00 p.m. Any other party in interest may file a reply to Plaintiffs'

5

response by Monday, November 18, 2013 at 5:00 p.m.

6

Furthermore, U.S. Bank is hereby excused from filing an answer to the complaint until

7

such time as the court dismisses defendant U.S. Bank from this action pursuant to Federal Rule of

8

Civil Procedure 4(m), or, if applicable, until such time as Plaintiffs have properly effected service

9

as provided for in a subsequent order from this court.

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: November 6, 2013
________________________________
KANDIS A. WESTMORE
United States Magistrate Judge

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

3