McGill v. Rokt Corp

Background

Plaintiff Holly McGill filed suit against Rokt Corp and other defendants, including ShopCanal, Inc., in the Northern District of California. The opinion does not describe the underlying claims. On June 5, 2026, the court extended the deadline for McGill to serve ShopCanal to July 9, 2026, and warned that her claims against ShopCanal could be dismissed if proper service was not completed by that date. As of the date of this order, the docket shows no indication that ShopCanal has been served.

Legal Framework

The court cited the foundational principle that proper service of process is a prerequisite to a court's exercise of personal jurisdiction (the court's authority over a specific defendant). Quoting Crowley v. Bannister, 734 F.3d 967, 974–75 (9th Cir. 2013), the court noted that a federal court lacks personal jurisdiction over a defendant who has not been served in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4. The court further noted, citing McMasters v. United States, 260 F.3d 814, 817–18 (7th Cir. 2001), that nothing in the federal rules permits a judge to excuse service altogether and that actual notice to the defendant is insufficient — formal compliance with Rule 4 is required.

Under Rule 4(m), if a defendant is not served within 90 days of the filing of the complaint, the court — either on a party's motion or on its own initiative after notifying the plaintiff — must either dismiss the action without prejudice (meaning it could be refiled) as to that defendant or order that service be made within a specified time.

Order to Show Cause

Because the court had already extended the service deadline once and there is still no record of service on ShopCanal, Magistrate Judge Hixson issued an order to show cause — a directive requiring McGill to file a written explanation demonstrating good cause (a legally sufficient reason) for her failure to serve ShopCanal within the time required by Rule 4(m). McGill must file documentation, including a sworn declaration if necessary, showing she undertook reasonable diligence in attempting to serve ShopCanal.

The court warned that failure to file a written response will be treated as an admission that McGill does not intend to pursue her claims against ShopCanal, and that the case will likely be dismissed as to ShopCanal. The court did not specify a deadline for McGill's response in the portion of the order reproduced in the opinion text — the deadline language appears to be cut off at the top of the second page.

Notes on Opinion Text

The first line of the second page of the order appears to be partially cut off, obscuring whatever deadline the court set for McGill's response. The summary reflects only what the reproduced text states.