United States District Court for the Northern District of California, 2021

Razavi v. Coti

Razavi v. Coti
United States District Court for the Northern District of California · Decided December 10, 2021
Razavi v. Coti

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

MELINA RAZAVI, Case No. 17-cv-04341-BLF

Plaintiff,

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION v. WITHOUT PREJUDICE FOLLOWING

PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO RESPOND CARLOS COTI and GEICO INSURANCE TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

COMPANY, [Re: ECF 28]

Defendants.

On November 9, 2021, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause why this case should not be dismissed without prejudice due Plaintiff’s failure to provide the U.S. Marshal with sufficient information to complete service of process on defendants. See OSC, ECF 28. The Court had ordered service by the U.S. Marshal because Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis. See Order Directing Service, ECF 24. On November 2, 2021, the U.S. Marshal returned unexecuted summons with respect to both Defendants, indicating that Defendants could not be located at the addresses provided by Plaintiff. See Summons Ret. Unexecuted, ECF 27.

The Court advised Plaintiff that her action would be dismissed if she did not respond to the Order to Show Cause with alternate service addresses for Defendants. See OSC at 2. “Where a pro se plaintiff fails to provide the Marshal with accurate and sufficient information to effectuate service of the summons and complaint, dismissal of the unserved defendant is appropriate.” Shaw v. Lindgren, No. CV 19-2700-DMG (AGR), 2021 WL 4614119, at *5 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 12, 2021); defendant where plaintiff failed to provide Marshal with information necessary to serve summons and complaint), overruled on other grounds by Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472 (1995). 3 The Court granted Plaintiff twenty-one days to provide the information necessary to allow the U.S. Marshal to serve Defendants, or otherwise to show cause why this action should not be dismissed. See OSC at 2. Plaintiff's response was due by November 30, 2021. See id. No || response has been filed.

7 Accordingly, this action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

8 IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 10, 2021 ll mer) ETH LABSON FREEMAN %L United States District Judge

= 17

Z 18

Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.