Opinion
CASE NO. 1:11-cv-00878 - - BAM
11-16-2011
TAMMY PINEDA and SERGIO PINEDA, Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al. Defendants.
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY ACTION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED
On May 31, 2011, Tammy Pineda and Sergio Pineda ("Plaintiffs") filed this action against defendants United States of America, James A. Kraus, M.D., Susan Kraus, M.D., Enrique Talamantes, PA-C, Silvia Diego, M.D., and Vikram Khanna, M.D (collectively, the "Defendants"). To date, Plaintiffs have failed to file proofs of service of the summons and complaint on Defendants.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) addresses the time limit to serve a summons and complaint:
If a defendant is not served within 120 days after the complaint is filed, the court - on motion or on its own after notice to the plaintiff - must dismiss the action without prejudice against that defendant or order that service be made within a specified time. But if the plaintiff shows good cause for the failure, the court must extend the time for service for an appropriate period.Rule 4(m) "encourages efficient litigation by minimizing the time between commencement of an action and service of process." Electric Specialty Co. v. Road and Ranch Supply, Inc., 967 F.2d 309, 311 (9th Cir. 1992) (addressing former F.R.Civ.P. 4(j)).
Accordingly, this Court ORDERS Plaintiffs, no later than December 1, 2011, to file papers to show good cause why Plaintiffs' claims should not be dismissed due to failure to timely serve Defendants with a summons and complaint. The Court will discharge this Order to Show Cause if, prior to December 1, 2011, Plaintiffs: (1) serves Defendants with a summons and complaint and files proof of such service; or (2) dismisses this action.
The Court will recommend dismissal of this action if Plaintiffs fail to: (1) establish good cause for their failure to timely serve Defendants with a summons and complaint; or (2) comply with this Order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Barbara A. McAuliffe
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE