Joseph Ercoli v. JLC Productions et al

Filing 17

ORDER SETTING COMPLIANCE HEARING AND CONTINUING CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE. Initial Case Management Conference set for 4/11/2016 is CONTINUED to Monday, 6/20/2016 02:00 PM in Courtroom 1, 4th Floor, Oakland. Compliance Hearing regarding service is set for Friday, 5/13/2016 09:01 AM before Hon. Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers. Signed by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers on 4/7/16. (fs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/7/2016)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3
4

JOSEPH ERCOLI,

Case No. 15-cv-06333-YGR

Plaintiff,
5
v.
6
7

TOP SHELF CLASSICS, ET AL.,

ORDER SETTING COMPLIANCE HEARING
AND CONTINUING CASE MANAGEMENT
CONFERENCE

Defendants.
8
9

A compliance hearing regarding plaintiff's failure to serve defendant Top Shelf Classics1
shall be held on Friday, May 13, 2016 on the Court’s 9:01 a.m. calendar, in the Federal

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

Courthouse, 1301 Clay Street, Oakland, California, Courtroom 1. As required by the Federal

12

Rules of Civil Procedure, plaintiffs must serve all defendants within ninety (90) days after filing a

13

complaint, at which point the Court must either dismiss the action or order that service be made

14

within a specified time. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m).

15

Accordingly, five (5) business days prior to the date of the compliance hearing, the

16

plaintiff shall file either: (1) certifications noting that service upon defendants has been

17

effectuated; or (2) a one-page statement setting forth an explanation for his failure to comply. If

18
19
20
21
22
23

compliance is complete, the compliance hearing will be taken off calendar. Failure to comply may
result in sanctions.
The Court CONTINUES the Case Management Conference set for April 11, 2016 to June
20, 2016.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: April 7, 2016
______________________________________
YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

24
25
26
1

27
28

In plaintiff's Case Management Statement, plaintiff suggests, but does not explicitly note,
that service upon defendants Kimpton Hotel & Restaurant and Intercontinental Hotel Groups have
been effectuated. (Dkt. No. 16, ¶1.)