AF Holdings, LLC v. Doe

Filing 30

ORDER CONTINUING ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE HEARING. Signed by Judge Lucy H. Koh on January 22, 2013. (lhklc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/22/2013)

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

AF HOLDINGS LLC,
Plaintiff,
v.
JOHN DOE,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 12-CV-02394-LHK

ORDER CONTINUING ORDER TO
SHOW CAUSE HEARING

18

On January 11, 2013, the Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause why this case should not be

19

dismissed because the Complaint in this matter was filed approximately 7 months ago and, despite

20

being granted leave to take expedited discovery to discover Defendants’ name, Plaintiff has not

21

identified or served Defendant. ECF No. 27 (“OSC”). Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

22

4(m), Plaintiff was required to serve Defendant within 120 days of filing the Complaint. The order

23

to show cause hearing is set for January 23, 2013. See id.

24

On January 17, 2013, Plaintiff filed a response to the OSC. ECF No. 28. In Plaintiff’s

25

response, Plaintiff states that Plaintiff has recently discovered that the subscriber whose account

26

was used to download Plaintiff’s copyrighted material is a “governmental entity.” Id. at 1.

27

Plaintiff states that Plaintiff “is currently in discussions with legal counsel for the governmental

28

entity, and hopes to soon have a better idea of how to move forward with the instant action.” Id.
1
Case No.: 12-CV-02394
ORDER CONTINUING ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE HEARING

1

In order to give Plaintiff additional time to obtain the name of the Doe Defendant, the Court

2

hereby CONTINUES the hearing on the OSC from January 23, 2013 to March 6, 2013 at 2:00 p.m.

3

Plaintiff is ordered to file an additional response to the OSC on February 27, 2013 updating the

4

Court on the status of Plaintiff’s discussion with the governmental entity. Plaintiff is advised that

5

if Plaintiff has not served the Defendant by February 27, 2013 and/or cannot demonstrate good

6

cause as to why this case should not be dismissed, the Court will dismiss Plaintiff’s case with

7

prejudice.1

8

IT IS SO ORDERED.

9

22, 2013
Dated: January 18, 2012

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

_________________________________
LUCY H. KOH
United States District Judge

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
1

28

The original OSC did not state whether dismissal would be with or without prejudice. This Order
clarifies that dismissal will be with prejudice.
2
Case No.: 12-CV-02394
ORDER CONTINUING ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE HEARING