Stephen Fantl et al v. David Glenwinkel et al

Filing 16

THIRD ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE. Show Cause Response due by 12/29/2017; ORDER discharging 13 Second Order to Show Cause. Signed by Judge Kandis A. Westmore on 12/11/2017. (kawlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/11/2017)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

STEPHEN FANTL, ET AL.,
Plaintiffs,

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

v.

Case No. 4:17-cv-02033-KAW
THIRD ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
Re: Dkt. No. 13

DAVID GLENWINKEL, et al.,
Defendants.

12
13

This action was filed on April 12, 2017. (Dkt. No. 1.) Pursuant to Rule 4(m) of the Federal

14

Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiffs had 90 days to complete service of the complaint and

15

summons on Defendants, such that July 11, 2017 was the last day to complete service or to file a

16

Motion for Administrative Relief from the deadline pursuant to Civil L.R. 7-11. On August 8,

17

2017, the Court issued an order to show cause to Plaintiffs to explain, by August 22, 2017, why

18

this matter should not be dismissed for failure to comply with the deadline to complete service.

19

(Dkt. No. 9.) On August 23, 2017 (one day late), Plaintiffs responded to the order to show cause

20

and requested that the deadline be extended to September 8, 2017. (Dkt. No. 10.) The undersigned

21

granted the extension and discharged the order to show cause on August 25, 2017. (Dkt. No. 12.)

22

Plaintiffs did not file a certificate of service nor did they seek leave of court for a further extension

23

of time to complete service. Plaintiffs failed to file a case management statement in advance of

24

the October 24, 2017 case management conference, and did not request that the case management

25

conference be continued.

26

On October 23, 2017, the Court issued a second order to show cause to Plaintiffs to

27

explain, by November 8, 2017, why the case should not be dismissed for failure to comply with

28

the deadline to complete service or file a Motion for Administrative Relief, and Plaintiffs’ counsel

1

was instructed to explain why he should not pay monetary sanctions in the amount of $500 for his

2

repeated failure to comply with the court’s deadlines. (Dkt. No. 13 at 1-2.) Plaintiffs were ordered

3

to complete service on Defendants and file certificates of service on the docket by November 8,

4

2017. Id. at 2. Plaintiffs were advised that the failure to comply with these deadlines may result in

5

the case being dismissed for failure to prosecute. Id.

6

On November 13, 2017, Plaintiffs’ counsel Matthew C. Elstein filed an untimely

7

declaration in response to the order to show cause. (Dkt. No. 15.) Therein, Mr. Elstein explained

8

that all defendants had been served via the waiver procedure, and that he expected defendants to

9

answer or have their defaults taken by the end of November 2017. Id. at ¶ 2. Mr. Elstein
represented that he would return waiver forms as they were received, but before the end of

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

November. Id. The second order to show cause is DISCHARGED.

12

To date, however, Plaintiffs have not filed any waiver forms or certificates of service nor

13

have any responses to the complaint been filed. Accordingly, the Court issues this third and final

14

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE, by December 29, 2017, why the court should not impose monetary

15

sanctions in the amount of $500 on Mr. Elstein, personally, for his repeated failure to comply with

16

the court’s orders.

17

Additionally, Plaintiffs shall file certificates of service on or before December 29, 2017.

18

The failure to timely respond to the order to show cause and file the certificates of service will

19

result in this case being reassigned to a district judge with the recommendation that it be dismissed

20

for failure to prosecute.

21
22

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: December 11, 2017
__________________________________
KANDIS A. WESTMORE
United States Magistrate Judge

23
24
25
26
27
28
2