Solobay v. Presidio Trust
- James Donato
- 3:23-cv-06359
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Solobay v. Presidio Trust, Judge Hixson ordered Michelle Solobay to explain why the case should not be dismissed for failing to serve Presidio Trust.
Michelle Solobay was required to respond by April 4, 2024. Presidio Trust faced possible dismissal of the action against it if service was not completed or Solobay did not adequately respond.
What happened
In Solobay v. Presidio Trust, Michelle Solobay filed a complaint against Presidio Trust, but no proof that the defendant received the summons and complaint had been filed. The court also said Solobay did not submit a required status report.
The court ordered Solobay to explain in writing by April 4, 2024, why the case should not be dismissed because service was not completed within the time required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4. The order did not dismiss the case; it warned that failing to respond would be treated as an admission that she did not intend to respond.
Judge Thomas S. Hixson issued the order to show cause on March 22, 2024.
The detailed version
- Solobay v. Presidio Trust · No. 3:23-cv-06359
- James Donato
- Mar. 22, 2024
Background
Michelle Solobay filed the complaint against Presidio Trust on December 11, 2023. The court stated that no proof of service of the summons and complaint had been filed. The court had vacated a March 14 case-management conference and ordered Solobay to file a status report by March 21, 2024, but received no response.
Court’s reasoning
The court explained that proper service of process is required for a federal court to exercise personal jurisdiction over a defendant. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m), if a defendant is not served within 90 days after the complaint is filed, the court must either dismiss the action without prejudice against that defendant or order service within a specified time, after giving the plaintiff notice.
Order
The court ordered Solobay to show cause in writing, no later than April 4, 2024, why the case should not be dismissed for failure to serve Presidio Trust within the time required by Rule 4(m). The order stated that failure to file a written response by the deadline would be treated as an admission that Solobay did not intend to respond. The opinion does not state that the case was dismissed.
The order was signed by Thomas S. Hixson, United States Magistrate Judge.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.