Simin Missaghi, et al. v. Antony Blinken, et al.

N.D. California

Simin Missaghi, et al. v. Antony Blinken, et al.

DecidedNovember 21, 2025

Docket3:24-cv-08601

StatusUnknown

This text of Simin Missaghi, et al. v. Antony Blinken, et al. (Simin Missaghi, et al. v. Antony Blinken, et al.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, N.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Simin Missaghi, et al. v. Antony Blinken, et al., (N.D. Cal. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 6 SIMIN MISSAGHI, et al., Case No. 24-cv-08601-TSH

7 Plaintiffs, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 8 v.

9 ANTONY BLINKEN, et al., 10 Defendants.

11 12 On December 1, 2024, Plaintiffs Simin Missaghi and Maria Cristina Hajiamini filed this 13 complaint requesting an order compelling the government to adjudicate Hajiamini’s immigrant 14 visa application. To date, no proof of service of the summons and complaint has been filed. 15 Proper service of process is a prerequisite to the Court’s exercise of personal jurisdiction 16 over a defendant. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(k). “‘A federal court is without personal jurisdiction over a 17 defendant unless the defendant has been served in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil 18 Procedure 4.’” Crowley v. Bannister, 734 F.3d 967, 974–75 (9th Cir. 2013) (quoting Travelers 19 Cas. & Sur. Co. of Am. v. Brenneke, 551 F.3d 1132, 1135 (9th Cir. 2009)). “[N]othing in the 20 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allows a judge to excuse service altogether. Actual notice to the 21 defendant is insufficient; the plaintiff must comply with the directives of Rule 4.” McMasters v. 22 United States, 260 F.3d 814, 817–18 (7th Cir. 2001) (citation omitted). 23 “If a defendant is not served within 90 days after the complaint is filed, the court – on 24 motion or on its own after notice to the plaintiff – must dismiss the action without prejudice 25 against that defendant or order that service be made within a specified time.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). 26 Accordingly, the Court ORDERS Plaintiffs to show cause, in writing and no later than December 27 5, 2025, why this case should not be dismissed for failure to serve within the time required by 1 admission that you do not intend to prosecute, and this case will likely be dismissed. Thus, it is 2 || imperative the Court receive a written response by the deadline above. 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 5 Dated: November 21, 2025

THOMAS S. HIXSON 7 United States Magistrate Judge 8 9 10 11 a 12

13 14

15 16 & 17 6 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 6 SIMIN MISSAGHI, et al., Case No. 24-cv-08601-TSH

7 Plaintiffs, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 8 v.

9 ANTONY BLINKEN, et al., 10 Defendants.

11 12 On December 1, 2024, Plaintiffs Simin Missaghi and Maria Cristina Hajiamini filed this 13 complaint requesting an order compelling the government to adjudicate Hajiamini’s immigrant 14 visa application. To date, no proof of service of the summons and complaint has been filed. 15 Proper service of process is a prerequisite to the Court’s exercise of personal jurisdiction 16 over a defendant. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(k). “‘A federal court is without personal jurisdiction over a 17 defendant unless the defendant has been served in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil 18 Procedure 4.’” Crowley v. Bannister, 734 F.3d 967, 974–75 (9th Cir. 2013) (quoting Travelers 19 Cas. & Sur. Co. of Am. v. Brenneke, 551 F.3d 1132, 1135 (9th Cir. 2009)). “[N]othing in the 20 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allows a judge to excuse service altogether. Actual notice to the 21 defendant is insufficient; the plaintiff must comply with the directives of Rule 4.” McMasters v. 22 United States, 260 F.3d 814, 817–18 (7th Cir. 2001) (citation omitted). 23 “If a defendant is not served within 90 days after the complaint is filed, the court – on 24 motion or on its own after notice to the plaintiff – must dismiss the action without prejudice 25 against that defendant or order that service be made within a specified time.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). 26 Accordingly, the Court ORDERS Plaintiffs to show cause, in writing and no later than December 27 5, 2025, why this case should not be dismissed for failure to serve within the time required by 1 admission that you do not intend to prosecute, and this case will likely be dismissed. Thus, it is 2 || imperative the Court receive a written response by the deadline above. 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 5 Dated: November 21, 2025

THOMAS S. HIXSON 7 United States Magistrate Judge 8 9 10 11 a 12

13 14

15 16 & 17 6 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Simin Missaghi, et al. v. Antony Blinken, et al., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/simin-missaghi-et-al-v-antony-blinken-et-al-cand-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack