Hasso v. City of San Diego

• Court: District Court, S.D. California
• Decided: September 16, 2021
• Docket: 3:19-cv-00368
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 JENNIFER J. HASSO aka JENNIFER J. Case No.: 19-CV-368 TWR (DEB) HASSO-NAJM, individually and as 10 Trustee of the NAJM FAMILY TRUST ORDER FOR PLAINTIFF TO SHOW 11 U/D/T 05/19/97, CAUSE WHY THIS ACTION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED AS 12 Plaintiff, TO THE MAYOR DEFENDANTS 13 v. FOR FAILURE TO EFFECT SERVICE AND FOR WANT OF 14 CITY OF SAN DIEGO, a California PROSECUTION municipal corporation; MAYOR KEVIN 15 L. FAULCONER, an individual; JEN 16 LEBRON, an individual; TODD GLORIA, an individual; YOVANNA 17 LEWIS, an individual; MARY 18 CARLSON, an individual; KTU&A, a California corporation; KURT W. 19 CARLSON, an individual; METRO SAN 20 DIEGO COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, a 21 California corporation; WILLIAM D. 22 NORDQUIST, an individual and as TRUSTEE OF THE WILLIAM D. 23 NORDQUIST FAMILY TRUST dated 24 May 14, 1993; EILEEN J. NORDQUIST, an individual and as TRUSTEE OF THE 25 WILLIAM D. NORDQUIST FAMILY 26 TRUST dated May 14, 1993; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, 27 Defendants. 28 1 Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides: 2 [i]f a defendant is not served within 90 days after the complaint is filed, the court—on motion or on its own after notice to the plaintiff—must dismiss the 3 action without prejudice against that defendant or order that service be made 4 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. 5

6 Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m); see also S.D. Cal. CivLR 4.1(b) (authorizing the Court to order 7 Plaintiff to show cause 100 days following the filing of a complaint when proof of service 8 has not been filed). “In the absence of service of process (or waiver of service by the 9 defendant) . . . a court ordinarily may not exercise power over a party the complaint names 10 as a defendant.” Murphy Bros., Inc. v. Michetti Pipe Stringing, Inc., 526 U.S. 344, 350 11 (1999); see Crowley v. Bannister, 734 F.3d 967, 974–75 (9th Cir. 2013) (“A federal court 12 is without personal jurisdiction over a defendant unless the defendant has been served in 13 accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 4.”) (citations omitted). Further, “[a]ctions or proceedings 14 [that] have been pending in this court for more than six months, without any proceeding or 15 discovery having been taken therein during such period, may, after notice, be dismissed by 16 the Court for want of prosecution.” S.D. Cal. CivLR 41.1(a); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) 17 (“If the plaintiff fails to prosecute or to comply with these rules or a court order, a defendant 18 may move to dismiss the action or any claim against it.”); Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 19 U.S. 626, 633 (1962) (“[A] District Court may dismiss a complaint for failure to prosecute 20 even without affording notice of its intention to do so or providing an adversary hearing 21 before acting.”). 22 Here, Plaintiff Jennifer J. Hasso filed a First Amended Complaint adding as 23 Defendants former Mayor Kevin L. Faulconer and former City Councilmember and current 24 Mayor Todd Gloria in their individual capacities (the “Mayor Defendants”) on January 26, 25 2020. (See generally ECF No. 61.) Plaintiff never filed proof of service of her First 26 Amended Complaint on the Mayor Defendants. (See generally Docket.) This action was 27 then transferred to the undersigned, (see generally ECF No. 85), who granted Plaintiff 28 leave to file her operative Second Amended Complaint on December 4, 2020. (See 1 || generally ECF No. 86.) Plaintiff filed her Second Amended Complaint on December 18, 2 2020, (see generally ECF No. 89), again naming the Mayor Defendants. A review of the 3 docket indicates that Plaintiff has neither filed proof of service of her Second Amended 4 ||Complaint on the Mayor Defendants nor taken any other action against them since 5 || December 18, 2020. (See generally Docket.) 6 Accordingly, the Court ORDERS Plaintiff to SHOW CAUSE why this action 7 ||should not be dismissed as to the Mayor Defendants for failure to effect service pursuant 8 ||to Rule 4(m) and Civil Local Rule 4.1(b) and for failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal 9 ||Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) and Civil Local Rule 41.1(a). Plaintiff SHALL FILE a 10 response to this Order, not to exceed ten (10) pages, within seven (7) days of the electronic 11 ||docketing of this Order. Should Plaintiff file a notice of voluntary dismissal pursuant to 12 || Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a) on or before that date, no further response to this 13 || Order shall be required. If Plaintiff fails adequately to respond to this Order within the 14 || time provided, the Court will enter a final order of dismissal without prejudice for failure 15 || to effect service pursuant to Rule 4(m) and Civil Local Rule 4.1(b); failure to prosecute 16 || pursuant Rule 41(b) and Civil Local Rule 41.1 (a); and failure to comply with the Federal 17 || Rules of Civil Procedure, Civil Local Rules, and this Order pursuant to Civil Local Rule 18 || 83.1(a). 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 20 Dated: September 15, 2021 —— 3 [Past Smee Tan (\obn— Honorable Todd W. Robinson 23 United States District Court 24 25 26 27 28