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
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?