Opinion
1:21-cv-00613 NONE JLT
06-30-2021
DEBRA BAREFIELD, Plaintiff, v. HSBC MORTGAGE SERVICES, INC., et al., Defendants.
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY SANCTIONS SHOULD NOT BE IMPOSED FOR THE PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO PROSECUTE THIS ACTION AND TO COMPLY WITH THE COURT’S ORDERS; ORDER CONTINUING THE MANDATORY SCHEDULING CONFERENCE
JENNIFER L. THURSTON, CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
The plaintiff, through counsel, initiated this action on April 9, 2021. (Docs. 1, 2) The Clerk of Court issued summonses on April 13, 2021 (Docs. 7-9) The order setting the mandatory scheduling conference reads,
This delay was caused by the failure to pay the filing fee, the failure to file the civil cover sheet and the fact that the plaintiff filed two separate complaints. (Docs. 1, 2, 4, 5)
The Court is unable to conduct a scheduling conference until defendants have been served with the summons and complaint. Accordingly, plaintiff(s) shall diligently pursue service of summons and complaint and dismiss those defendants against whom plaintiff(s) will not pursue claims. Plaintiff(s) shall promptly file proofs of service of the summons and complaint so the Court has a record of service. Counsel are referred to F.R.Civ.P., Rule 4 regarding the requirement of timely service of the complaint Failure to timely serve the summons and complaint may result in the imposition of sanctions, including the dismissal of unserved defendants.(Doc. 10 at 1) The plaintiff has not filed proofs of service, and no defendant has appeared in the action. In the order granting the request of Ms. Barefield’s attorney to withdraw from the case (Doc. 13), the Court made two keys points. First, the Court urged Ms. Barefield to cafeully consider whether she truly wished to proceed in this action. Id. at 1, n. 1. The Court noted,
. . . this case bears a striking similarity to litigation Ms. Barefield filed in this Court earlier and which were decided against her. See Barefield v. HSBC Holdings, PLC, et al, No.” 1:18-v-527-LJO JLT; Barefield v. HSBC Holdings, PLC et al., No. 1;18-cv-01442 LJO JLT. The Court urges Ms. Barefield to consider whether a fair reading of her complaint in conjunction with the previous two she has filed, could lead to the reasonable conclusion that this litigation is frivolous and intended for harassment purposes. If it is frivolous or intended as harassment, she is strongly urged to dismiss it now before service of the complaint and is cautioned that Fed.R.Civ.P. 11 may be invoked to impose sanctions.”Id.
Second, the Court ordered Ms. Barefield to “serve the summons and complaint upon the defendants in compliance with Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,” and also that Any request for an extension of time for service shall be filed by noticed motion and supported y good cause.” (Doc. 13 at 4) Though Ms. Barefled indicated that she intended to hire new counsel, more than a month has passed since the Court’s order allowing counsel to withdraw, but new counsel has not appeared and Ms. Barefield had not filed proofs of service. Her deadline for serving the summonses and complaint is fast approaching. Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(m). Therefore, the Court ORDERS:
1. No later than July 16, 2021 , the plaintiff SHALL show cause why sanctions should not be imposed for the failure to prosecute this action and to serve the summons and complaint in a timely fashion as ordered. Alternatively, the plaintiff may file a proof of service demonstrating the summons and complaint has been served or she may file a request for dismissal of the action;
2. The scheduling conference is CONTINUED to August 30, 2021 at 8:30 a.m. Failure to respond may result in the Court recommending dismissal of the action.
IT IS SO ORDERED.