1 2 3 4

5

6

7

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

11 PETER STROJNIK, SR., No. 2:19–cv–2041–TLN–CKD PS 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE; 14 SACRAMENTO HOTEL, LLC,

ORDER TO DEMONSTRATE PROPER

SERVICE OF THE SUMMONS AND

15 Defendant.

COMPLAINT

16

17 18 Proceeding pro se, plaintiff filed this action against defendant Sacramento Hotel, LLC, on 19 October 11, 2019. At plaintiff’s request, the clerk’s office entered a default against defendant 20 Sacramento Hotel on January 28, 2020. (ECF No. 6.) 21 On November 12, 2020, the court ordered plaintiff to either proceed with a motion for 22 default judgment or file a notice of dismissal of this action. Plaintiff filed a motion for default 23 judgment on December 21, 2020. (ECF No. 11.) On December 23, 2020, the court issued a 24 minute order advising plaintiff the motion was defective because it was not noticed on the hearing 25 calendar in compliance with Local Rule 230(b). 26 On May 20, 2021, the motion for default judgment was still not properly noticed for a 27 hearing in compliance with Local Rule 230(b). The court ordered plaintiff to show cause, in 28 writing and within 21 days, why the motion for default judgment should not be stricken for 1 plaintiff’s failure to comply with Local Rule 230 and why this case should not be dismissed for 2 failure to prosecute and failure to comply with the court’s orders and the local rules. Plaintiff was 3 warned that failure to respond to the order to show cause could result in the imposition of 4 sanctions, including dismissal of plaintiff’s claims against defendant. (ECF No. 15.) 5 On June 6, 2021, plaintiff filed a properly noticed motion for default judgment. (ECF No. 6 16.) Plaintiff did not, however, respond in writing and within 21 days of the May 20, 2021 order 7 to show cause why the case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute and failure to comply 8 with the court’s orders and the local rules. 9 Plaintiff’s noticing of the motion for default judgment for a hearing on August 18, 2021 10 does not suffice to satisfy the requirement of a written response to the order to show cause. As 11 such, plaintiff will be ordered to show cause, in writing and within 14 days of service of this 12 order, why the court should not impose sanctions in the form of a $250 fine on plaintiff for failing 13 to file a written response to the May 20, 2021 order to show cause. See Local Rule 110 (“Failure 14 of counsel or of a party to comply with these Rules or with any order of the Court may be 15 grounds for imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the 16 Court.”); Local Rule 183 (“All obligations placed on ‘counsel’ by these Rules apply to 17 individuals appearing in propria persona.”); King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987) 18 (“Pro se litigants must follow the same rules of procedure that govern other litigants.”) (overruled 19 on other grounds by Lacey v. Maricopa County, 693 F.3d 896 (9th Cir. 2012)). 20 In addition, plaintiff did not serve a copy of the motion for default judgment on defendant. 21 Service of such a motion on a defendant who has been properly served and who has not appeared 22 is not generally required. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b)(2); Local Rule 135(d). Upon inspection of the 23 return of service for the summons and the complaint, however, the return does not sufficiently 24 establish that defendant was properly served with those documents. 25 Federal law allows service of process by leaving a copy of the summons and complaint at 26 the individual defendant’s dwelling house or usual place of abode or delivery to an authorized 27 agent. Fed R. Civ. P. 5(b). Here, the return of service indicates the summons and complaint were 28 left with “C/O-Agent for Service of Process: The Corporation Trust Company” at the Corporate 1 | Trust Center in Wilmington, Delaware. (ECF No. 4.) According to information maintained by the 2 || California Secretary of State, the Corporation Trust Company is not and was not the registered 3 | agent for service on Sacramento Hotel, LLC.! 4 A federal court does not have jurisdiction over a defendant unless the defendant has been 5 || served properly under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4. See Omni Capital Int’| Ltd. v. Rudolf 6 | Wolff & Co., 484 U.S. 97, 104 (1987). Because it appears the return of service for the summons 7 || and the complaint does not establish that defendant was properly served with those documents, 8 | plaintiff must take further action to demonstrate proper service of the complaint and summons on 9 || the defendant named in this action at this time. 10 Plaintiff is cautioned that failure to timely file a proof of service, amended proof of 11 || service, supplemental affidavits, or other briefing demonstrating proper service of the complaint 12 || and summons on the defendant and/or failure to timely file a written response to this order to 13 || show cause may result in the imposition of sanctions. Such sanctions may include monetary 14 || sanctions as described and, in addition, up to and including dismissal of this action. 15 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 16 1. Plaintiff □□ ordered to show cause, in writing and within 14 days of service of this 17 || order, why the court should not impose sanctions in the form of a $250 fine on plaintiff for 18 | plaintiff's failure to file a written response to the May 20, 2021 order to show cause; and 19 2. Within 30 days of service of this order, plaintiff shall file either a proof of service, 20 || amended proof of service, supplemental affidavits, or other briefing demonstrating proper service 21 || of the complaint and summons on the defendant named in this action. 22 || Dated: June 17, 2021 / hice fr fA. ?

CAROLYNK.DELANEY

24 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 25 || 8.Strojnikl 9cv204 1.osc.summons 26 Q_—_ x Sod ' See generally, https://businesssearch.sos.ca.gov/Document/RetrievePDF?Id=201522910238- 28 | 26461794 (last visited June 15, 2021).