Opinion
6:23-cv-01064-EFM-KGG
07-26-2023
JOHN CLIFFORD GLAHN, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. WEST HILLS CAPITAL, LLC and JOSEPH UNGER Defendants.
NOTICE AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
Kenneth G. Gale U.S. Magistrate Judge
On April 20, 2023, Plaintiff, John Clifford Glahn, filed a Complaint naming as Defendants, West Hills Capital LLC and Joseph Unger. (Doc. 1). Plaintiff received a notice of judge assignment on the same day. Summons has issued, but no return summons has been filed and no action has otherwise been taken to prosecute the case.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) governs the time limit for service. Rule 4(m) provides that “[i]f 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 that defendant or order that service be made within a specified time.” Additionally, Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b) provides that the court may dismiss an action for failure to prosecute. Here, Plaintiff has not effectuated service of the summons on the Defendants and more than 90 days has passed since the complaint was filed.
Accordingly, the Court orders Plaintiff to show cause in writing by August 11, 2023, why the undersigned Magistrate Judge should not recommend that its claims be dismissed pursuant to Rule 4(m) and/or Rule 41(b).
IT IS SO ORDERED.