Solobay v. Presidio Trust

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: March 22, 2024
• Docket: 3:23-cv-06359
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 MICHELLE SOLOBAY, Case No. 23-cv-06359-TSH

8 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 9 v.

10 PRESIDIO TRUST, 11 Defendant.

12 13 On December 11, 2023, Plaintiff Michelle Solobay filed this complaint against Defendant 14 Presidio Trust. To date, no proof of service of the summons and complaint has been filed. As 15 such, on March 8 the Court vacated the March 14 case management conference and ordered 16 Plaintiff to file a status report by March 21, 2024. No response has been received. 17 Proper service of process is a prerequisite to the Court’s exercise of personal jurisdiction 18 over a defendant. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(k). “‘A federal court is without personal jurisdiction over a 19 defendant unless the defendant has been served in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil 20 Procedure 4.’” Crowley v. Bannister, 734 F.3d 967, 974–75 (9th Cir. 2013) (quoting Travelers 21 Cas. & Sur. Co. of Am. v. Brenneke, 551 F.3d 1132, 1135 (9th Cir. 2009)). “If a defendant is not 22 served within 90 days after the complaint is filed, the court – on motion or on its own after notice 23 to the plaintiff – must dismiss the action without prejudice against that defendant or order that 24 service be made within a specified time.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). Accordingly, the Court ORDERS 25 Plaintiff to show cause, in writing and no later than April 4, 2024, why this case should not be 26 dismissed for failure to serve within the time required by Rule 4(m). Notice is hereby provided 27 that failure to file a written response will be deemed an admission that you do not intend to 1 response by the deadline above. 2 IT IS SO ORDERED. 3 4 Dated: March 22, 2024

THOMAS S. HIXSON 6 United States Magistrate Judge 7 8 9 10 11 12

© 15 16

= 17

Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28