Ramos v. El Tazumal No. 1 Inc.
- 3:26-cv-04114
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 2
Counsel of record per CourtListener. Firm names are approximate.
In Ramos v. El Tazumal No. 1 Inc., the court issued an order requiring plaintiff Oscar Ramos to explain by August 31, 2026 why his case should not be dismissed for failing to serve the defendants within 90 days of filing.
Plaintiffs in federal court who file a lawsuit but do not promptly serve defendants may face dismissal under the 90-day service rule. This order is relevant to anyone who has filed a federal lawsuit and needs to understand the obligation to serve all defendants within 90 days of filing.
What happened
In Ramos v. El Tazumal No. 1 Inc. (Case No. 26-cv-04114-TLT, Northern District of California), Oscar Ramos filed a lawsuit on May 5, 2026 against El Tazumal No. 1 Inc. (also doing business as El Tazumal Restaurant), Tiffany Le, Buu T. Du, and unnamed additional defendants. A summons was issued on May 21, 2026, but as of the date of this order, Ramos had not shown any evidence that the defendants were ever served with the lawsuit within the required 90-day window under the federal rules.
Federal courts require plaintiffs to serve defendants with a copy of the lawsuit within 90 days of filing. If that deadline passes without service, a court can dismiss the case. Here, the court found no indication that Ramos served any of the named defendants on time, prompting it to issue this order requiring Ramos to explain himself before the case is thrown out.
The court — whose signature line identifies the judge as a United States District Judge but does not legibly provide a name — ordered Ramos to respond by August 31, 2026, addressing whether defendants were served, whether there is a good reason for any delay, and whether he wants more time to complete service. If no response is received by that deadline, the court warned the case will be dismissed. Any unresolved issues will also be addressed at the case management conference already scheduled for October 1, 2026.
The detailed version
- Ramos v. El Tazumal No. 1 Inc. · No. 3:26-cv-04114
- Aug. 24, 2026
Background
On May 5, 2026, plaintiff Oscar Ramos filed this action in the Northern District of California against El Tazumal No. 1 Inc., individually and doing business as El Tazumal Restaurant, along with Tiffany Le, Buu T. Du, and Does 1 through 50 (unidentified defendants). A summons was issued as to all named defendants on May 21, 2026. A case management conference is scheduled for October 1, 2026, with the parties' joint case management statement due by September 24, 2026.
The Problem: Failure to Timely Serve
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) requires a plaintiff to serve defendants within 90 days of filing the complaint. If service is not completed within that window, the court may dismiss the action without prejudice or, upon a showing of good cause, order service within a specified time. As of the date of this order, Ramos had provided no indication that any defendant had been timely served.
The Order to Show Cause
The court issued an order to show cause — a directive requiring a party to explain why a particular action (here, dismissal) should not occur — giving Ramos until August 31, 2026 to respond. The response must address three specific questions:
- Whether defendants were ever served, and if so, proof of service must be filed;
- Whether good cause exists for any failure to timely serve defendants;
- Whether Ramos is seeking an extension of time to complete service.
The court cited Crowley v. Bannister, 734 F.3d 967, 975–76 (9th Cir. 2013) as authority for dismissal under Rule 4(m).
Consequences and Next Steps
If Ramos does not respond by August 31, 2026, the court stated the case will be dismissed. The court also noted that Ramos should make every effort to serve defendants promptly so the parties can submit a joint case management statement by September 24, 2026. Any remaining issues regarding the order to show cause will be addressed at the October 1, 2026 case management conference.
What the Court Did NOT Do
The court did not dismiss the case at this time. It did not rule on the merits of any claim. It only issued a procedural order requiring Ramos to justify why dismissal should not occur.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.