Caballero v. Williams ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 Cesar Caballero et al., No. 2:21-cv-00638-KJM-CKD 12 Plaintiffs, ORDER 13 v. 14 Michael Williams et al., 1S Defendants. 16 17 After reviewing the record, the court finds insufficient evidence plaintiffs effected service 18 | on any of the defendants. In California, service by email may be proper but only if a court finds 19 | “itis reasonably calculated to give actual notice to the party to be served.” See Cisco Sys. v. 20 | Shaitor, No. 18-00480, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 106893, at *8 (N.D. Cal. June 25, 2018). The 21 | court cannot conclude on this record that is so. 22 The only piece of evidence is that a non-party, counsel for the proposed intervenors, filed 23 | a document alleging he effected service by email on two of the five defendants. See Affidavit of 24 | Service, ECF No. 21. Assuming without deciding it is appropriate for a non-party to effect 25 | service on behalf of plaintiff even when the party is adverse to the plaintiff, there is insufficient 26 | evidence on this record to find the service was reasonably calculated to give notice to all parties. 27 | See Cisco Sys. v. Shaitor, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 106893, at *8 (N.D. Cal. June 25, 2018); 28 | ///// 1 | Amend. Mot. Intervene, Mem. P&A at 2, ECF No. 9 (“Williams, Webb and Caballero are all 2 | trespassers to the D-Q lands and have no possessory interest in the lands.”). 3 If a defendant is not served within 90 days after the complaint is filed, the court must 4 | dismiss the action without prejudice absent a showing of good cause. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m); see 5 | also Jamul Action Comm. v. Chaudhuri, No. 13-01920, 2015 WL 6744531, at *2—4 (E.D. Cal. 6 | Nov. 4, 2015). Here, the complaint was filed on April 8, 2021. Compl., ECF No. 1. As it has 7 | been more than 90 days since the filing of the complaint, plaintiffs are ordered to show cause 8 | within 14 days of the date of this order why the claims against all defendants should not be 9 | dismissed under Rule 4(m). 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. 1] DATED: August 10, 2021. 12 ee CHIEF ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 45