1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ANGEL RIVERA, Case No. 1:25-cv-01023-JLT-CDB 12 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY SANCTIONS SHOULD NOT BE IMPOSED 13 v. FOR PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE COURT’S ORDERS 14 OSMOSE UTILITIES SERVICES, INC., et al., AND FED. R. CIV. P. 4(m) 15 November 14, 2025, Deadline Defendants. 16 17 18 19 Plaintiff Angel Rivera (“Plaintiff”) initiated this action, on behalf of himself and a putative 20 class, with the filing of a complaint in state court on July 8, 2025, against Defendants Osmose 21 Utilities Services, Inc., and Adan Duran. (Doc. 1-1). Defendant Osmose Utilities Service, Inc., 22 removed the action on August 14, 2025. (Doc. 1). The next day, the Court entered an order setting 23 a mandatory scheduling conference for November 13, 2025. (Doc. 3). The Court’s order directed 24 Plaintiff to “diligently pursue service of summons and complaint” and “promptly file proofs of 25 service.” (Doc. 3 at 1). The order further advised Plaintiff that failure to timely complete service 26 “may result in the imposition of sanctions, including the dismissal of unserved defendants.” Id. 27 To date, it has been more than 120 days since the action commenced in state court and 28 more than 90 days since removal to this Court, and Plaintiff has not filed proof of service nor any 1 || report setting forth an explanation for the failure to serve Defendant Adan Duran. Defendant 2 || Duran did not make an appearance at the scheduling conference on November 13, 2025. (Doc. 9). 3 || Counsel for Plaintiff confirmed at the scheduling conference that Defendant Duran had not been 4 || served. 5 Local Rule 110 provides that “[fJailure of counsel or of a party to comply with these Rules 6 ||or with any order of the Court may be grounds for imposition by the Court of any and all 7 || sanctions...within the inherent power of the Court.” The Court has the inherent power to control 8 || its docket and may, in the exercise of that power, impose sanctions where appropriate, including 9 || dismissal of the action. Bautista v. Los Angeles County,

, 841 (9th Cir. 2000). 10 In addition, Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides: “Ifa defendant is 11 || not served within 90 days after the complaint is filed, the court - on motion or on its own after 12 || notice to the plaintiff - must dismiss the action without prejudice against that defendant or order 13 || that service be made within a specified time.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 4Gm). Absent a showing of good 14 || cause, failure to comply with Rule 44m) requires dismissal of any unserved defendant. 15 Conclusion and Order 16 Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that no later than November 14, 2025, 17 || Plaintiff SHALL show cause in writing why sanctions should not be imposed — including dismissal 18 || of Defendant Duran — for Plaintiff's failure to serve the summons and complaint in a timely manner 19 || under the Court’s orders and Rule 4(m). 20 Any failure by Plaintiff to timely comply with this order will result in a recommendation 21 || that Defendant Duran be dismissed. 22 || IT IS SO ORDERED. 23 Dated: _ November 13, 2025 | Vv Vv RR 24 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 25 26 27 28