1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 SONGHUA LIU, Case No. 24-cv-06578-AMO Plaintiff, 8 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE v. 9 10 LONGYAN CHEN, et al., Defendants. 11 12 13 On September 19, 2024, Plaintiff Songhua Liu (“Liu”) filed a Complaint against 14 Defendants Longyan Chen and Shenzhenshiyixindianziyouxiangonsi. ECF 1. On October 15, 15 2024, Liu filed a motion for temporary restraining order (“TRO”). ECF 5. That same day, the 16 Court denied Liu’s motion because Liu had not provided notice to Defendants as required by the 17 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (“Rules” or, individually, “Rule”), nor had she satisfied the 18 criteria required for the Court to grant a TRO without notice to the adverse parties as provided by 19 Rule 65(a)(1). See ECF 8 at 1-2. Over six months have passed since Liu filed her complaint, and 20 as of the date of this Order, Plaintiff has not sought a summons, nor has there been any other 21 activity on the docket from Liu since she filed the TRO in October 2024. 22 A plaintiff is responsible for having the summons and complaint served on the defendant. 23 Rule 4(c). Liu’s complaint alleges that Defendants likely reside abroad, see ECF 1 at 2, and 24 accordingly, Liu is not bound by Rule 4(m)’s requirement that a plaintiff serve a defendant within 25 90 days after the complaint is filed. See Rule 4(m) (“[S]ubdivision (m) does not apply to service 26 in a foreign country. . . .”). Nonetheless, pursuant to Rule 41(b), the Court may dismiss a case for 27 failure to prosecute if warranted by the Court’s balancing of certain factors, including the Court’s 1 v. Galaza,

(9th Cir. 2002). 2 Liu is therefore ORDERED to show good cause why the Court should not dismiss this 3 action pursuant to Rule 41 for failure to prosecute. Liu SHALL FILE a written response to this 4 || Order, no longer than three pages, by April 22, 2025. Liu’s response shall describe why she has 5 not yet served Defendants, whether and how Liu intends to serve Defendants, and why the Court 6 || should not dismiss Liu’s complaint for failure to date to serve Defendants. Failure to respond to 7 || this Order will result in dismissal of this case. Additionally, the Court VACATES the April 3, 8 2025 case management conference, which will be reset once Defendants have appeared. 9 The Court reminds Plaintiff that resources are available for parties who are representing 10 || themselves in the Northern District of California. The Court encourages all self-represented 11 litigants to consult with the Federal Pro Bono Project (sometimes also called the Legal Help 12 || Center), though this is optional. To schedule an appointment with the Legal Help Center, email 5 13 fedpro @sfbar.org or call (415) 782-8982. The Northern District of California website also has 14 various resources available, including a Pro Se Handbook about how to represent oneself in court. 3 15 These resources are available online at: https://www.cand.uscourts.gov/pro-se-litigants/. Relevant 16 || here, Chapter 8 of the Handbook explains the rules for serving documents on defendants in a 3 17 lawsuit. 18 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 20 Dated: March 25, 2025 21 □□ 22 :

73 ARACELI MARTINEZ-OLGUIN United States District Judge 24 25 26 27 28