From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Westin v. City of Calabasas

United States District Court, Central District of California
Oct 24, 2022
CV 22-03788-VBF (DFM) (C.D. Cal. Oct. 24, 2022)

Opinion

CV 22-03788-VBF (DFM)

10-24-2022

Bruce Westin v. City of Calabasas et al.


PRESENT THE HONORABLE DOUGLAS F. MCCORMICK, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Proceedings: (IN CHAMBERS) Order to Show Cause re Service

On June 2, 2022, Plaintiff filed a civil rights complaint against the City of Calabasas, California Superior Court, and California Court of Appeal. See Dkt. 1. After more than four months, there is no record that Plaintiff has properly served the California Superior Court and/or the California Court of Appeal. “If a defendant is not served within 90 days after the complaint is filed, the court-on its own 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.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(m). The Court “must extend” the time for service if the plaintiff shows good cause for the failure. Id.

Plaintiff is thus ordered to show cause within seven (7) days why the California Superior Court and California Court of Appeal should not be dismissed from this action for failure to effectuate service. Plaintiffs filing of the proof of service of summons and complaint on those Defendants is sufficient to discharge this order. Failure to respond will result in a recommendation of dismissal.


Summaries of

Westin v. City of Calabasas

United States District Court, Central District of California
Oct 24, 2022
CV 22-03788-VBF (DFM) (C.D. Cal. Oct. 24, 2022)
Case details for

Westin v. City of Calabasas

Case Details

Full title:Bruce Westin v. City of Calabasas et al.

Court:United States District Court, Central District of California

Date published: Oct 24, 2022

Citations

CV 22-03788-VBF (DFM) (C.D. Cal. Oct. 24, 2022)

Citing Cases

Pastore v. Cnty. of Santa Cruz

Defendants argue that Mr. Pastore's claim fails because public nuisance abatement efforts do not constitute a…