Brooke v. Independence Menlo Hotel Owner LLC ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 SAN JOSE DIVISION 7 8 THERESA BROOKE, Case No. 19-cv-06689-VKD 9 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY 10 v. ACTION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED 11 INDEPENDENCE MENLO HOTEL OWNER LLC, 12 Defendant. 13 14 Plaintiff Theresa Brooke filed this action on October 18, 2019. Dkt. No. 1. Pursuant to 15 the initial case management scheduling order and General Order 56, Ms. Brooke’s last day to 16 complete service on defendant Independence Menlo Hotel Owner LLC (“Independence Menlo”) 17 or to file a motion for administrative relief from the service deadline was December 17, 2019. 18 Dkt. No. 4. A review of the docket shows that Ms. Brooke filed a returned summons showing 19 service upon an Albert Damonte for C T Corporation System, Inc. on October 23, 2019. Dkt. No. 20 7. However, the Clerk’s Office declined to enter default as Ms. Brooke requested because the 21 party served was not the same as the party listed on the summons. Dkt. Nos. 8, 9. Ms. Brooke has 22 taken no further action in this matter, and it does not appear that Independence Menlo has waived 23 service of summons. 24 Additionally, as a reminder, all named parties must consent to magistrate judge jurisdiction 25 before a magistrate judge may hear and decide a case. 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1); Williams v. King, 26 875 F.3d 500 (9th Cir. 2017). The Court has issued notices regarding the assignment of this 27 matter to a magistrate judge, the most recent of which sets a January 16, 2020 deadline for filing 1 declination to proceed before a magistrate judge. The consent/declination form is available on the 2 Northern District of California’s website, https://cand.uscourts.gov/filelibrary/1335/MJ_Consent- 3 Declination _Form_Jan2014.pdf. Parties are free to withhold consent without adverse substantive 4 consequences. Fed. R. Civ. P. 73(b)(2). 5 Accordingly, Ms. Brooke shall appear before this Court on January 21, 2020 at 10:00 6 a.m. in Courtroom 2, Fifth Floor, 280 South First Street, San Jose, California 95113 and show 7 cause why this action should not be dismissed without prejudice for failure to timely complete 8 service of process and for failure to prosecute. If Ms. Brooke contests dismissal, she shall file a 9 || response to this order no later than January 16, 2020 explaining why the action should not be 10 || dismissed. 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. a 12 Dated: January 3, 2020 = ¢ «68 VIRGINIA K. DEMARCHI IS United States Magistrate Judge 16 = 17 Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28