From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

McCarthy v. County of Sacramento

United States District Court, E.D. California
Jul 16, 2010
2:10-cv-00346-GEB-JFM (E.D. Cal. Jul. 16, 2010)

Opinion

2:10-cv-00346-GEB-JFM.

July 16, 2010


ORDER


Plaintiffs were required to show cause ("OSC") in a writing filed no later than 4:00 p.m. on July 12, 2010, why sanctions should not be imposed against Plaintiffs and/or their counsel under Rule 16(f) because of Plaintiffs' failure to timely file a status report. Plaintiffs were also notified that any defendant not served with process within the 120 day period prescribed in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) ("Rule 4(m) notice") may be dismissed as a defendant unless Plaintiff provided proof of service or showed good cause for the failure to serve defendant(s) within the prescribed period in a filing due June 11, 2010.

Plaintiffs have not responded to the OSC or the Rule 4(m) notice as required. Since the 120 day period to serve defendants under Rule 4(m) has expired, and Plaintiffs have not filed proof of service showing that any defendant has been served, this action is dismissed and shall be closed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

McCarthy v. County of Sacramento

United States District Court, E.D. California
Jul 16, 2010
2:10-cv-00346-GEB-JFM (E.D. Cal. Jul. 16, 2010)
Case details for

McCarthy v. County of Sacramento

Case Details

Full title:DESIREE McCARTHY, as Guardian Ad Litem for T.G., D.G., and T.H.…

Court:United States District Court, E.D. California

Date published: Jul 16, 2010

Citations

2:10-cv-00346-GEB-JFM (E.D. Cal. Jul. 16, 2010)