Opinion
For Carrie Henderson, Terrence Henderson, Plaintiffs: Mary E Cochran, Mary E Cochran Law Offices, Inglewood, CA.
For County of Los Angeles, Defendant: Davida M Frieman, LEAD ATTORNEY, Ivie McNeil and Wyatt, Los Angeles, CA; Elvin-Mathias Tabah, Ivie McNeill & Wyatt, Los Angeles, CA; Rickey Ivie, Ivie McNeill and Wyatt APC, Los Angeles, CA.
Proceedings: (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY DOE DEFENDANTS 1-10 SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FROM ACTION
Jay C. Gandhi, United States Magistrate Judge.
On this day, the Court granted summary judgment for Defendant County of Los Angeles. [ See Dkt. No. 37.] Thus, the only remaining defendants in this action are Doe Defendants 1-10.
As of today, 653 days have elapsed since Plaintiff filed the First Amended Complaint. [ See Dkt. No. 19.] Thus, Plaintiff's claims against the Doe Defendants are subject to dismissal. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(m) (providing that action may be dismissed without prejudice as against any defendant who has not been served within 120 days of filing).
Accordingly, Plaintiff is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE, in writing, on or before April 28, 2015, why Doe Defendants 1-10 should not be dismissed from this action.
Plaintiff is warned that her failure to timely respond to this Order will result in the dismissal of Doe Defendants 1-10, pursuant to Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
IT IS SO ORDERED.