Liu v. Chen
- Martinez-Olguin
- 3:24-cv-06578
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Liu v. Chen, Judge Martinez-Olguin ordered Liu to explain why her case should not be dismissed for failing to serve the defendants.
Songhua Liu, who was ordered to explain her failure to serve the defendants; Longyan Chen and Shenzhenshiyixindianziyouxiangonsi, who had not yet appeared according to the order.
What happened
In Liu v. Chen, Songhua Liu sued Longyan Chen and another defendant. Liu had not requested a summons or taken other action after filing her complaint, and the defendants had not been served. The court had also previously denied Liu’s request for a temporary restraining order because she had not given the defendants notice or met the requirements for an order without notice.
The court ordered Liu to file a written response of no more than three pages by April 22, 2025. Her response must explain why she had not served the defendants, how she intends to serve them, and why the case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. The court warned that failing to respond will result in dismissal. The court did not dismiss the case in this order and vacated the scheduled case-management conference.
Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin issued the order. The court noted that the defendants may reside outside the United States, so the usual 90-day service deadline does not apply, but explained that Rule 41(b) may still allow dismissal for failure to prosecute. The court also identified resources for people representing themselves.
The detailed version
- Liu v. Chen · No. 3:24-cv-06578
- Martinez-Olguin
- Mar. 25, 2025
Background
Songhua Liu filed a complaint against Longyan Chen and Shenzhenshiyixindianziyouxiangonsi on September 19, 2024. Liu later moved for a temporary restraining order. On October 15, 2024, the court denied that motion because Liu had not provided notice to the defendants and had not satisfied the requirements for obtaining a temporary restraining order without notice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(a)(1).
More than six months after Liu filed the complaint, she had not requested a summons, and the docket showed no other activity from her since she filed the temporary-restraining-order motion. The court explained that a plaintiff is responsible for having the summons and complaint served. Because Liu alleged that the defendants likely reside abroad, the usual Rule 4(m) requirement to serve defendants within 90 days does not apply to service in a foreign country. The court nevertheless stated that Rule 41(b) permits dismissal for failure to prosecute when warranted under the applicable factors.
Order
The court ordered Liu to show good cause—meaning a sufficient explanation—why the action should not be dismissed under Rule 41 for failure to prosecute. Liu must file a written response of no more than three pages by April 22, 2025. The response must explain why she has not served the defendants, whether and how she intends to serve them, and why the complaint should not be dismissed for the failure to serve the defendants to date.
The order states that failure to respond will result in dismissal of the case. The court did not dismiss the case in this order. It also vacated the April 3, 2025 case-management conference, stating that the conference will be reset after the defendants appear. The court provided information about resources for self-represented litigants, including the Federal Pro Bono Project, the Legal Help Center, and the district’s handbook concerning service of documents.
Judge
Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin issued the order to show cause.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.