Signatours Corporation v. Hauer

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE SIGNATOURS CORPORATION, CASE NO. 2:23-CV-01204-LK Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 12 v. 13 CHAD HAUER and STEPHANIE HAUER, a married couple, Defendants.

This matter comes before the Court sua sponte. Signatours Corporation has taken no action in this case since filing its corporate disclosure statement on August 8, 2023, Dkt. No. 2, and the last activity of record was the Court’s posting of its Standing Order for All Civil Cases on August 10, 2023, Dkt. No. 7. Although the Clerk of Court issued a summons addressed to the Hauers, Dkt.

No. 5, Signatours has not filed an affidavit or other proof of proper service. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(e), (l)(1).

“An individual or entity named as a defendant is not obliged to engage in litigation unless notified of the action, and brought under a court's authority, by formal process.” Murphy Bros., Inc. v. Michetti Pipe Stringing, Inc., 526 U.S. 344, 347 (1999); see also Omni Cap. Int'l, Ltd. v. Rudolf Wolff & Co., 484 U.S. 97, 104 (1987) (“Before a federal court may exercise personal jurisdiction over a defendant, the procedural requirement of service of summons must be satisfied.”). And when “a defendant is not served within 90 days after the complaint is filed, the court—on motion or on its own after notice to the plaintiff—must dismiss the action without prejudice against the defendant or order that service be made within a specified time.” Fed. R. Civ. 7 P. 4(m). The district court must extend the 90-day period upon a showing of good cause and, absent such a showing, retains broad discretion to dismiss the action or extend the period for service. Id.; see In re Sheehan, 253 F.3d 507, 512 (9th Cir. 2001); Efaw v. Williams, 473 F.3d 1038, 1041 (9th Cir. 2007). “[I]f good cause is not established, the district court may extend time for service upon a showing of excusable neglect.” Lemoge v. United States, 587 F.3d 1188, 1198 (9th Cir. 2009).

12 The Court therefore ORDERS Signatours to show cause, within 21 days of this Order, why this action should not be dismissed without prejudice for failure to timely serve the Hauers in accordance with Rule 4. To justify an extension of the now-expired 90-day window, Signatours must set forth facts establishing good cause or excusable neglect. Signatours may in the alternative file proof of proper service (i.e., a process server’s affidavit establishing that the Hauers were properly served within the 90-day window) or otherwise show that the Hauers have agreed to waive service. The Court will dismiss this case without prejudice absent a timely response.

19 Dated this 10th day of January, 2024.

20 A 21 Lauren King United States District Judge