Maslic v. ISM Vuzem d.o.o.
- Beth Freeman
- 5:21-cv-02556
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Maslic v. ISM Vuzem d.o.o., Judge Freeman ordered plaintiffs to explain why two defendants should not be dismissed for unserved process.
The plaintiffs and Defendants ISM Vuzem USA, Inc. and Vuzem USA, Inc.; the order required the plaintiffs to explain why the two defendants should not be dismissed for failure to serve them.
What happened
Maslic v. ISM Vuzem d.o.o. concerns two defendants whom the docket indicated had not been served. The opinion says those defendants were alleged to be a South Carolina corporation and a California corporation.
The court explained that defendants generally must be served within 90 days after the complaint is filed. It also noted that plaintiffs had described the two corporations as dissolved, but that status does not necessarily eliminate the service requirement.
Judge Beth Labson Freeman ordered the plaintiffs to explain in writing by July 14, 2023, why the two defendants should not be dismissed for failure to serve them. The court did not dismiss the defendants in this order.
The detailed version
- Maslic v. ISM Vuzem d.o.o. · No. 5:21-cv-02556
- Beth Freeman
- June 26, 2023
Background
The court stated that the docket indicated Defendants ISM Vuzem USA, Inc. and Vuzem USA, Inc. had not been served. The complaint allegedly identified ISM Vuzem USA, Inc. as a South Carolina corporation and Vuzem USA, Inc. as a California corporation.
Service Requirement
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) generally requires service of the complaint and summons within 90 days after the complaint is filed. If a defendant is not served within that period, the court may dismiss the action against that defendant without prejudice or order that service be completed by a specified deadline, after giving the plaintiff notice.
The court noted that plaintiffs had indicated in briefing on other matters that the two defendants were dissolved corporations. It explained, citing an earlier Northern District of California decision, that dissolution does not necessarily relieve a plaintiff of the obligation to serve process.
Order
The court ordered the plaintiffs to show cause, in writing and by July 14, 2023, why ISM Vuzem USA, Inc. and Vuzem USA, Inc. should not be dismissed for failure to effect service of process. This order did not itself dismiss either defendant.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.