Wang v. Thomson et al

Filing 48

ORDER OF DISMISSAL as to remaining individual Defendants. Signed by Judge Beth Labson Freeman on 4/9/2015. (blflc3S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/9/2015)

Download PDF
1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 SAN JOSE DIVISION 6 7 CHARLES WANG, Case No. 14-cv-02388-BLF Plaintiff, 8 v. 9 10 TAYLOR THOMSON, et al., Defendants. ORDER DISMISSING ACTION AGAINST REMAINING INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS [Re: ECF 46] United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 13 On October 9, 2014, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint in this action, naming as 14 Defendants Massachusetts General Hospital (“MGH,” sued as Mass General Hospital), Taylor 15 Thomson, D. Systrom, Dr. Hesse, Dr. Rhee, Dr. Matola, Dr. Madoff, Frances West, and “MGH 16 Attending ICU medical physicians and staff.” FAC, ECF 32 at 1. 17 On December 19, 2014, the Court granted MGH’s motion to dismiss, with prejudice. 18 The Court undertook a review of the record in this case, and determined that Plaintiff had 19 not served his FAC on any of the remaining Defendants. On February 9, 2015, the Court issued an 20 Order to Show Cause, instructing Plaintiff to either (1) show that he had effected service on the 21 remaining Defendants prior to February 6, 2015, 120 days from the date he filed his FAC, or (2) 22 provide a reason as to why his failure to serve the remaining Defendants should be excused. See 23 Order to Show Cause, ECF 46 at 2. 24 25 The Court gave Plaintiff until March 9, 2015 to respond to the Order to Show Cause. As of April 8, 2015, Plaintiff has not filed a response. 26 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) requires a court to dismiss an action without 27 prejudice against a defendant when that defendant has not been served within “120 days after the 28 complaint is filed,” unless a plaintiff shows “good cause for the failure.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). 1 Plaintiff has not served Defendants Taylor Thomson, D. Systrom, Dr. Hesse, Dr. Rhee, Dr. 2 Matola, Dr. Madoff, or Frances West, nor has he served any “MGH Attending ICU medical 3 physicians [or] staff.” As such, consistent with Rule 4(m), the Court DISMISSES this action 4 against those Defendants, without prejudice. See Caballero v. Gonzalez, 2009 WL 3876293, at *2 5 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 18, 2009) (dismissing an action without prejudice against parties plaintiff failed to 6 serve within the time allotted by Rule 4(m), and entering judgment in the action). 7 8 9 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: April 9, 2015 ______________________________________ BETH LABSON FREEMAN United States District Judge United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

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?