Summary
The United States District Court for the Central District of California dismissed the action without prejudice because the plaintiff failed to timely serve the summons and complaint and comply with court orders. The court relied on Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 4(m) and 41(b), denied the pending ex parte motion as moot, and directed entry of judgment.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the action should be dismissed without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) for failure to effect service within the applicable deadline.
- Whether the action should be dismissed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) and the court's inherent authority for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with court orders.
- Whether plaintiff's ex parte application for reconsideration should be granted under Central District of California Local Rule 7-18.
Holdings
- The action warranted dismissal without prejudice because plaintiff failed to timely effect service and failed to comply with the court's order to show cause and subsequent service deadlines.
- The court denied plaintiff's ex parte application because it did not present a material difference in fact or law from what the court had previously considered.
Key quotations
“must dismiss the action without prejudice” (at 1)
“the court finds that plaintiff’s failure to timely effect service and comply with the Court’s Order to Show Cause issued on June 16, 2025 (Dkt. 26) warrants dismissal of this action without prejudice.” (at 2)
Factual background
Plaintiff filed the complaint but did not file proofs showing service of the summons and complaint on either defendant. After the court issued an order to show cause, granted two extensions, identified service rules and physical addresses, and gave plaintiff a final opportunity to complete service, plaintiff still did not effect service by the final deadline. Plaintiff also filed an ex parte application seeking reconsideration and alternative service that did not identify a material difference in fact or law from the matters previously considered.
Procedural history
Plaintiff filed the complaint on January 18, 2025. The court issued an order to show cause concerning plaintiff's failure to complete service under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m), then granted two extensions of the service deadline and gave plaintiff a final opportunity to effect service. Plaintiff filed no proofs of service by the date of the dismissal order. The court dismissed the action without prejudice under Rules 4(m) and 41(b), denied the ex parte motion for reconsideration, and directed entry of judgment.