Kamath v. Alsup
- 3:23-cv-06494
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Kamath v. Alsup, the court dismissed the action after Reshma Kamath failed to serve the amended complaint and follow a court order.
Reshma Kamath's entire civil action was dismissed, affecting her claims against the defendants, including William Alsup.
What happened
In Kamath v. Alsup, Reshma Kamath, an attorney representing herself, filed a complaint and later an amended complaint. The docket did not show that she requested a summons for the amended complaint or filed proof that the defendants had been served.
The court ordered Kamath to request a summons and serve the defendants, along with required supporting materials, by July 29, 2024. The order warned that the action would be dismissed if she did not comply. Kamath did not timely file proof of service and did not request more time.
The court dismissed the entire civil action for failure to serve the amended complaint and summons and for failure to comply with a court order. Judge information was not legible in the provided opinion text, so the ruling is attributed to the court; the clerk was directed to close the file.
The detailed version
- Kamath v. Alsup · No. 3:23-cv-06494
- Aug. 2, 2024
Background
Reshma Kamath, an attorney proceeding without a lawyer, filed a complaint on December 17, 2023. No proof of service for the complaint and summons was filed. Kamath filed an amended complaint on April 30, 2024, but the docket indicated that she had not requested a summons for it.
Court Order and Service
On June 14, 2024, the court ordered Kamath to request a summons from the clerk and serve the defendants with the amended complaint, summons, and the additional materials required by the Northern District of California's Civil Local Rule 4-2 by July 29, 2024. The court warned that it would dismiss the action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) if she did not comply.
Rule 4(m) generally requires service of the complaint and summons within 90 days after filing. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) allows dismissal when a plaintiff fails to prosecute a case or comply with the rules or a court order. The opinion also states that a court may order such a dismissal on its own initiative.
Ruling
The court found that Kamath had not timely filed proof of service of the amended complaint and summons and had not sought an extension of time. The court dismissed the civil action in its entirety for failure to serve the amended complaint and summons under Rule 4(m) and for failure to comply with a court order under Rule 41(b). The court directed the clerk to close the file. The opinion text supplied does not clearly identify the judge's name because the signature is not legible.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.