Opinion
3:24-cv-00897-H-AHG
08-20-2024
MICHAEL TAGWERKER, Plaintiff, v. AMAZON.COM SERVICES, LLC; FUZHOU FEIWO TRADING COMPANY, LTD; ELENKERWALKER.COM; IMAGINELIFE; FLYWORLD, LLC; and DOES 1 through 20, Defendants.
ORDER:
1) SUBMITTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS; AND
2) ORDERING PLAINTIFF TO SHOW CAUSE FOR FAILURE TO SERVE DEFENDANTS [DOC. NO. 13.]
MARILYN L. HUFF, DISTRICT JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
On July 1, 2024, Defendant Amazon.com Services, LLC (“Amazon”) filed a motion to dismiss its Co-Defendants, Fuzhou Feiwo Trading Company, Ltd. (“Fuzhou Feiwo”), Elenkerwalker.com, ImagineLife, and Flyworld, LLC (“Flyworld”), (collectively, “Amazon's Co-Defendants”) pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) for Plaintiff's failure to timely serve Amazon's Co-Defendants. (Doc. No. 13.) On July 15, 2024, Plaintiff Michael Tagwerker (“Plaintiff”) filed a response in opposition to Amazon's motion. (Doc. No. 17.) On July 22, 2024, Amazon filed a reply. (Doc. No. 20.) The hearing on Defendant's motion to dismiss is currently scheduled for Monday, August 26, 2024, at 10:30 a.m. The Court, pursuant to its discretion under Civil Local Rule 7.1(d)(1), determines the matter is appropriate for resolution without oral argument, submits the motion on the parties' papers, and vacates the hearing.
For the reasons below, the Court issues an order to show cause. On October 24 2023, Plaintiff filed this action against Amazon, Fuzhou Feiwo, ElenkerWalker.com, ImagineLife.com, Flyworld, and Does 1 through 20 in the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego. (Doc. No. 1-5, Compl.) On November 16, 2023, Plaintiff served Amazon with his complaint. (Doc. No. 1-12.) On May 21, 2024, Amazon removed the action to this Court. (Doc. No. 1.)
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) governs the time limit for service of a summons and complaint. See Williams v. Cnty. of Los Angeles, 2024 WL 2862587, at *1 (9th Cir. June 6, 2024). Rule 4(m) provides that a plaintiff has 90 days to serve a defendant after the complaint is filed, and if a defendant is not served within that time, “the court-on motion or on its own after notice to the plaintiff-must dismiss the action without prejudice against that defendant or order that service be made within a specified time.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(m). For cases removed to federal court, 28 U.S.C. § 1448 provides that for “any one or more of the defendants [which] has not been served with process or in which the service has not been perfected prior to removal . . . such process or service may be completed or new process issued in the same manner as in cases originally filed in such district court.” 28 U.S.C. § 1448. After a case is removed to federal court, a plaintiff has 90 days from the date of removal “to effect service of process on all defendants, regardless whether the plaintiff failed to serve process in state court.” Whidbee v. Pierce Cnty., 857 F.3d 1019, 1023 (9th Cir. 2017).
Here, Plaintiff does not dispute that it has not served Amazon's Co-Defendants. (Doc. No. 17.) Instead, Plaintiff argues that it has until August 19, 2024, or 90 days following the May 21, 2024 date of removal, to serve process on any previously unserved Defendants. (Id. at 1-3.) On August 19, 2024, Plaintiff did not file a proof of service with the Court to demonstrate that it had served Amazon's Co-Defendants.
The Court orders Plaintiff to properly serve Amazon's Co-Defendants, including Fuzhou Feiwo, Elenkerwalker.com, ImagineLife, and Flyworld, by August 26, 2024, and to file proofs of service with the Court. Absent a showing of good cause, failure to comply with this Order will result in dismissal of Amazon's Co-Defendants.
IT IS SO ORDERED.