Fosselman v. Jackson

Background

The action had been stayed at Jerome Fosselman’s request because he was in medical quarantine and could not participate in the litigation while there. After his release, Fosselman filed a motion to reopen the action.

Two defendants, D. Huynh and Stanson, remained unserved because summonses directed to them were returned unexecuted. The court noted that the complaint had been pending for more than 120 days and that Fosselman had not provided enough information for the Marshal to locate and serve those defendants.

Rulings and directions

Judge Richard Seeborg granted Fosselman’s motion to reopen, reopened the action, and directed the Clerk to modify the docket. The court ordered Fosselman, by December 1, 2020, either to serve Huynh and Stanson himself with the summons and complaint or to provide accurate current locations so the Marshal could serve them.

The court stated that if Fosselman did not complete service or provide the required location information by that date, his claims against Huynh and Stanson would be dismissed without prejudice under Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The court also stated that it would reinstate the defendants’ motion for summary judgment, filed before the stay, after the service issue was satisfactorily addressed. The Clerk was directed to terminate all pending motions.

Effect of the order

This order reopened the case and set a deadline concerning service of process. It did not decide the pending summary-judgment motion or the underlying claims. The threatened dismissal of claims against Huynh and Stanson was stated as a consequence of failing to meet the service deadline, not as a dismissal entered by this order.