Ou-Young v. County of Santa Clara et al

Filing 14

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY CASE SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO EFFECT SERVICE OF PROCESS. Show Cause Response due by 1/21/2022. Signed by Judge Beth Labson Freeman on 1/7/2022. (blflc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/7/2022)Any non-CM/ECF Participants have been served by First Class Mail to the addresses of record listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF)

Download PDF
Case 5:21-cv-07361-BLF Document 14 Filed 01/07/22 Page 1 of 1 1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 SAN JOSE DIVISION 7 8 KUANG-BAO PAUL OU-YOUNG, 9 Plaintiff, v. 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA, et al., Case No. 21-cv-07361-BLF ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY CASE SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO EFFECT SERVICE OF PROCESS Defendants. 12 13 14 Plaintiff Kuang-Bao Paul Ou-Young filed this action on September 22, 2021. See Compl., 15 ECF 2. “If a defendant is not served within 90 days after the complaint is filed, the court – on 16 motion or on its own after notice to the plaintiff – must dismiss the action without prejudice 17 against that defendant or order that service be made within a specified time.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). 18 More than 90 days have elapsed and Plaintiff has not filed proof of service of process on any of 19 the Defendants. Accordingly, Plaintiff is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE, in writing and on or 20 before January 21, 2022, why this case should not be dismissed without prejudice under Rule 21 4(m). 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. 23 24 25 26 27 28 Dated: January 7, 2022 ______________________________________ BETH LABSON FREEMAN United States District Judge

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?