Elreich
Ahmad Abu Elreich v. Waymo LLC, et. al.
Opinion
trial_court Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 AHMAD ABU ELREICH, Case No. 1:25-cv-00814-JLT-HBK 12 Plaintiff, ORDER STRIKING PROOF OF SERVICE
13 v. ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO
RETURN SERVICE FORMS
14 WAYMO LLC, et. al., (Doc. No. 21) 15 Defendants.
TEN-DAY DEADLINE
16
17 18 Plaintiff proceeds pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil action. (Doc. No. 1). On 19 August 1, 2025, the Court screened Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) and determined 20 it stated a claim against Defendants Waymo LLC and Uber Technologies, Inc. for patent 21 infringement sufficient to withstand screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). (Doc. No. 13 at 1). 22 The Court directed Plaintiff to complete and return service documents so service of Plaintiff’s 23 FAC could be effectuated upon Defendants. (Doc. No. 13 at 2). On October 17, 2025, Plaintiff 24 was granted an extension of time to return the service documents. (Doc. No. 19 at 1). 25 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4 governs the commencement of…