United States v. Salazar ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Case No. 1:23-cv-01282-CDB 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE 13 v. SCHEDULING CONFERENCE 14 JAVIER SALAZAR, JR., et al. ORDER REQUIRING SERVICE AND FILING OF SUMONSES RETURNED 15 Defendants. EXECUTED OR STATUS REPORT 16 (Doc. 5) 17 Deadline: December 1, 2023 18 19 On August 28, 2023, Plaintiff United States of America initiated this action with its filing 20 of a complaint against Defendants Javier Salazar, Jr., Javier Salazr, Sr., and Ricardo Covarrubias. 21 (Doc. 1). That same date, the Clerk of Court issued summonses and the Court entered an Order 22 setting a mandatory scheduling conference. (Docs. 2, 3). The Order directed Plaintiff to 23 “diligently pursue service of summons and complaint” and “promptly file proofs of service.” 24 The Order further advised Plaintiff that failure to diligently prosecute this action “may result in 25 the imposition of sanctions, including the dismissal of unserved defendants.” 26 With respect to service, where a plaintiff fails to serve a defendant within 90 days after 27 the complaint is filed, Rule 4(m), Fed. R. Civ. P. requires the Court to dismiss the action or order 28 that service be made within a specified time upon a showing by the plaintiff of “good cause” for 1 || the delay. See In re Sheehan, 253 F.3d 507, 512 (9th Cir. 2001). 2 Pending before the Court is Plaintiffs ex parte application to continue the scheduling 3 || conference set for November 20, 2023. (Doc. 5). The application is supported by the declaration 4 || of counsel for Plaintiff in which he attests that Plaintiff mailed to each Defendant waivers of 5 || service, but otherwise has not attempted to effect service. /d. at 3. Counsel further attests that, 6 || in light of his having not received responeses from Defendants to the waivers, he anticipates 7 || needing to effect personal service. Because of the upcoming holidays, counsel asserts good 8 |] cause exists to continue the scheduling conference to allow for additional time to effect service, 9 || for Defendants to seek counsel, and for the parties to prepare for the scheduling conference. Id. 10 In light of Plaintiff's representations and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY 11 |} ORDERED, the November 20, 2023 scheduling conference is reset to January 29, 2024, at 9:00 12 || AM. before Magistrate Judge Christopher D. Baker. The parties are reminded of their obligation 13 || to file a joint scheduling report at least one week prior to the conference. (Doc. 3). 14 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Rule 4(m), Fed. R. Civ. P., no later than 15 || December 1, 2023, Plaintiff SHALL FILE either summonses returned executed as to each 16 || Defendant or a status report setting forth good cause for any requested service extension. || IT IS SO ORDERED. || Dated: _ October 30, 2023 | hwwrD ba 19 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28