CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

Case No. CV-25-06022-AGR Date: October 8, 2025 Title Juan P. Martinez-Resendiz, et. al. v. Ford Motor Company, et. al.

Present: The Honorable: Alicia G. Rosenberg, United States Magistrate Judge

K. Lozada n/a Deputy Clerk Court Reporter / Recorder

Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs: Attorneys Present for Defendants: n/a n/a

Proceedings: (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY DEFENDANT THE

FORD STORE MORGAN HILL, INC. SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED WITHOUT

PREJUDICE FOR FAILURE TO SERVE PROCESS

On July 2, 2025, this matter was removed to federal court by Defendant Ford Motor Company. (Dkt. No. 1.) The complaint was filed in the Superior Court for California, Los Angeles County and names The Ford Store Morgan Hill, Inc. as an additional defendant. (Compl. Dkt. No. 1-1 at 3.)

The record does not contain proof of service of the complaint and summons on The Ford Store Morgan Hill, Inc. (“Ford Store”) in the state court action. Nor has Plaintiff requested issuance of a summons for Ford Store in this case.

“[O]nce a case is removed to federal court, a plaintiff has a specified number of days to effect service of process on all defendants, regardless whether the plaintiff failed to serve process in state court.” Whidbee v. Pierce Cnty., 857 F.3d 1019, 1023 (9th Cir. 2017); see 28 U.S.C. § 1448 (“In all cases removed from any State court to any district court of the United States in which any one or more of the defendants has not been served with process or in which the service has not been perfected prior to removal, or in which process served proves to be defective, such process or service may be completed or new process issued in the same manner as in cases originally filed in such district court.”).

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

Case No. CV-25-06022-AGR Date: October 8, 2025 Title Juan P. Martinez-Resendiz, et. al. v. Ford Motor Company, et. al. By Order dated August 25, 2025, this Court reminded Plaintiff that, under Rule 4(m), Plaintiff had 90 days to serve process upon defendant Ford Store after the notice of removal and the complaint was filed in this action on July 2, 2025. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m); Whidbee, 857 F.3d at 1023 (applying Rule 4(m) to removal cases). Accordingly, Plaintiff must effect service of process upon Ford Store on or before September 30, 2025 under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). Alternatively, Plaintiff may elect to dismiss Ford Store from this case. (Order, Dkt. No. 5.)

Plaintiff has not filed a proof of service on Defendant Ford Store by September 30, 2025 or requested an extension of time to do so. Nor has Plaintiff filed a dismissal of Defendant Ford Store.

“If a defendant is not served within 90 days after the complaint is filed, the court – on motion or on its own after notice to the plaintiff – must dismiss the action without prejudice against that defendant or order that service be made within a specified time. But if the plaintiff shows good cause for the failure, the court must extend the time for service for an appropriate period.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m).

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff show cause, in writing, by October 22, 2025 why Defendant The Ford Store Morgan Hill, Inc. should not be dismissed from this action without prejudice for failure to serve process within the time period provided in Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). Filing a proof of service of the summons, complaint, and notice of assignment upon Defendant The Ford Store Morgan Hill, Inc. by October 22, 2025 shall be sufficient to discharge this order to show cause.

Plaintiff is warned that failure to show cause in writing or file a proof of service by October 22, 2025 will result in the dismissal without prejudice of Defendant The Ford Store Morgan Hill, Inc. from this action.

Initials of Preparer kl