Wilbert Roberts v. FCA US LLC

United States District Court for the Central District of California

Wilbert Roberts v. FCA US LLC

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL Case No. 2:22-cv-08393-ODW (PLAx) Date August 9, 2023 Title Wilbert Roberts v. FCA US LLC et al.

Present: The Honorable Otis D. Wright II, United States District Judge Sheila English Not reported N/A Deputy Clerk Court Reporter / Recorder Tape No. Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs: Attorneys Present for Defendants: Not present Not present Proceedings (In Chambers): Plaintiff Wilbert Roberts initiated this lawsuit against Defendants FCA US LLC and Glendale Dodge Chrysler Jeep Ram. (See Decl. Hailey Rogerson (“Rogerson Decl.”) ISO Removal Exs. A (“Compl.”), B (“First Am. Compl.”), C (“Second Am. Compl.”), ECF Nos. 1-2 to 1-4.) The record reflects that Plaintiff served the Complaint on Defendant Glendale on June 3, 2021, by substitute service. (Decl. Hailey Rogerson Ex. K (“Proof of Service— Glendale”), ECF No. 1-12.) However, the Court does not find in the record an indication that Plaintiff has served Glendale with the operative Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”).

Accordingly, the Court ORDERS Plaintiff to SHOW CAUSE, in writing only, no later than August 16, 2023, why the Court should not dismiss Glendale based on Plaintiff’s failure to serve the SAC within the Rule 4(m) period. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m) (“If a defendant is not served within 90 days after the complaint is filed, the court . . . must dismiss the action without prejudice against that defendant or order that service be made within a specified time.”). In an action removed from state court, the 90-day period begins to run upon removal.

28 U.S.C. § 1448

; Whidbee v. Pierce Cnty.,

857 F.3d 1019, 1023

(9th Cir. 2017). No hearing will be held. The Court will discharge this order upon the identification in the record of a proof of service on Glendale of the SAC, the filing of a timely proof of such service, or a demonstration of good cause why such timely service has not been made, supported by declaration under penalty of perjury. Failure to timely or adequately respond to this Order may result in the dismissal of Defendant Glendale without further notice.

IT IS SO ORDERED. : 00 Initials of Preparer SE

Reference

Status
Unknown