Tojino v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. et al

Filing 8

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE Why the Case Should Not Be Dismissed. Show Cause Response due by 6/2/2011. Signed by Judge Koh on 5/18/2011. (lhklc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/18/2011)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9

SAN JOSE DIVISION

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17

AMELIA J. TOJINO,
Plaintiff,
v.
JP MORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., et
al.,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 11-CV-00045-LHK
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY CASE
SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED

Plaintiff Amelia Tojino filed the Complaint in this action on January 5, 2011. Since that

18

date, Plaintiff has taken no action in this case, and there is no indication that the Defendants have

19

been served. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m), “[i]f a defendant is not served within

20

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

21

plaintiff — must dismiss the action without prejudice against that defendant or order that service be

22

made within a specified time.” In this case, the 120-day period to serve Defendants expired on

23

May 5, 2011. In addition, Plaintiff failed to either consent to proceed before a magistrate judge or

24

request reassignment to a district judge by the deadline ordered by Magistrate Judge Paul S.

25

Grewal. See Order That Case Be Reassigned, ECF No. 5.

26

The Court held a Case Management Conference on May 18, 2011. Neither Plaintiff nor

27

Plaintiff’s counsel appeared, and no case management statement was filed. Based upon Plaintiff’s

28

failure to appear, to respond to orders of the Court, and to timely serve Defendants, it appears that
1
Case No.: 11-CV-00045-LHK
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY CASE SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED

1

Plaintiff no longer seeks to litigate this case. Accordingly, the Court hereby ORDERS Plaintiff to

2

show cause with this case should not be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute and

3

failure to timely serve Defendants. Plaintiff must file a written response by June 2, 2011. If

4

Plaintiff fails to respond, the case will be dismissed without prejudice.

5

IT IS SO ORDERED.

6
7

Dated: May 18, 2011

_________________________________
LUCY H. KOH
United States District Judge

8
9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
Case No.: 11-CV-00045-LHK
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY CASE SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED