From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Razavi v. Coti

United States District Court, Northern District of California
Dec 10, 2021
17-cv-04341-BLF (N.D. Cal. Dec. 10, 2021)

Opinion

17-cv-04341-BLF

12-10-2021

MELINA RAZAVI, Plaintiff, v. CARLOS COTI and GEICO INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendants.


ORDER DISMISSING ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE FOLLOWING PLAINTIFF'S FAILURE TO RESPOND TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE [Re: ECF 28]

BETH LAB SON FREEMAN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

On November 9, 2021, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause why this case should not be dismissed without prejudice due Plaintiff's failure to provide the U.S. Marshal with sufficient information to complete service of process on defendants. See OSC, ECF 28. The Court had ordered service by the U.S. Marshal because Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis. See Order Directing Service, ECF 24. On November 2, 2021, the U.S. Marshal returned unexecuted summons with respect to both Defendants, indicating that Defendants could not be located at the addresses provided by Plaintiff. See Summons Ret. Unexecuted, ECF 27.

The Court advised Plaintiff that her action would be dismissed if she did not respond to the Order to Show Cause with alternate service addresses for Defendants. See OSC at 2. “Where a pro se plaintiff fails to provide the Marshal with accurate and sufficient information to effectuate service of the summons and complaint, dismissal of the unserved defendant is appropriate.” Shaw v. Lindgren, No. CV 19-2700-DMG (AGR), 2021 WL 4614119, at *5 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 12, 2021); see also Walker v. Sumner, 14 F.3d 1415, 1422 (9th Cir. 1994) (affirming dismissal of unserved 1 defendant where plaintiff failed to provide Marshal with information necessary to serve summons and complaint), overruled on other grounds by Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472 (1995).

The Court granted Plaintiff twenty-one days to provide the information necessary to allow the U.S. Marshal to serve Defendants, or otherwise to show cause why this action should not be dismissed. See OSC at 2. Plaintiff's response was due by November 30, 2021. See id. No response has been filed.

Accordingly, this action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 2


Summaries of

Razavi v. Coti

United States District Court, Northern District of California
Dec 10, 2021
17-cv-04341-BLF (N.D. Cal. Dec. 10, 2021)
Case details for

Razavi v. Coti

Case Details

Full title:MELINA RAZAVI, Plaintiff, v. CARLOS COTI and GEICO INSURANCE COMPANY…

Court:United States District Court, Northern District of California

Date published: Dec 10, 2021

Citations

17-cv-04341-BLF (N.D. Cal. Dec. 10, 2021)