Opinion
21-cv-02556-BLF
06-26-2023
SASA MASLIC, et al., Plaintiffs, v. ISM VUZEM D.O.O., et al., Defendants.
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY DEFENDANTS ISM VUZEM USA, INC. AND VUZEM USA, INC. SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO EFFECT SERVICE OF PROCESS
BETH LABSON FREEMAN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
It appears from the docket that Defendants ISM Vuzem USA, Inc. and Vuzem USA, Inc. have not been served. Those defendants are alleged to be a South Carolina corporation and a California corporation, respectively. See Corrected First Am'd Compl. ¶¶ 5-6, ECF 63. Accordingly, Plaintiffs were required to serve them within 90 days after the complaint was filed. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(m) (“If a defendant is not served within 90 days after the complaint is filed, the court--on motion or on its own after notice to the plaintiff--must dismiss the action without prejudice against that defendant or order that service be made within a specified time.”).
In briefing on other matters, Plaintiffs have indicated that Defendants ISM Vuzem USA, Inc. and Vuzem USA, Inc. are dissolved corporations. However, a defendant's status as a dissolved corporation does not necessarily relieve a plaintiff from the obligation to serve process. See Haskins v. Fuller-O'Brien, Inc., No. 11-CV-05142-JST, 2013 WL 1789672, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 26, 2013) (describing the means by which a summons may be served on a dissolved corporation under California law). Plaintiffs shall address this issue in their response to this Order to Show Cause.
Plaintiffs are ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE, in writing and by July 14, 2023, why Defendants ISM Vuzem USA, Inc. and Vuzem USA, Inc. should not be dismissed for failure to effect service of process.
IT IS SO ORDERED.