Opinion
No. 2:14-cv-00686-KJM-AC
06-07-2016
JAVIER SOLIS, Plaintiff, v. TARGET CORPORATION, a corporation, and DOES 1-100, inclusive, Defendants.
ORDER
On May 5, 2016, the court ordered plaintiff to show cause why the court should not dismiss the "Doe" defendants. ECF No. 77. Plaintiff has not responded to the court's order. The court construes plaintiff's lack of response as a concession, and therefore DISMISSES the unnamed defendants under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m). See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m) (providing for dismissal of defendants not served within ninety days of filing of the complaint unless the plaintiff shows good cause); see also Glass v. Fields, No. 1:09-00098, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 97604 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 31, 2011); Hard Drive Prods. v. Does, No. 11-01567, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 109837, at *2-4 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 27, 2011).
IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: June 7, 2016
/s/_________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE