Popparties LLC v. Zixuanyin

— 1 — — 2 — — 3 — — 4 — — 5 — — 6 — — 7 — — 8 — UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 9 AT SEATTLE — 10 — 11 POPPARTIES LLC, CASE NO. 2:22-cv-00467-TL 12 Plaintiff(s), ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE v. — 13 — ZIXUANYIN, — 14 — Defendant(s). — 15 — — 16 — 17 This matter comes before the Court sua sponte, on review of the record. 18 Plaintiff filed this action on April 8, 2022. Dkt. No. 1. Summons were issued on April 12. 19 Dkt. No. 8. There has been no activity in the case by the Parties since then, aside from the 20 appearance of an attorney on Plaintiff’s behalf (Dkt. No. 11). 21 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) provides that, “[i]f a defendant is not served within 22 90 days after the complaint is filed, the court . . . must dismiss the action without prejudice 23 against that defendant or order that service be made within a specified time.” However, this 24 provision “does not apply to service in a foreign country . . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). The Court 1 may also dismiss a case for a plaintiff’s failure to prosecute its case. See Ash v. Cvetkov, 739 2 F.2d 493 , 496–97 (9th Cir. 1984) (“It is within the inherent power of the court to sua sponte 3 dismiss a case for lack of prosecution.”); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) (involuntary dismissal 4 where a plaintiff fails to prosecute). 5 Here, more than 90 days have transpired since the Complaint was filed, and no proof of 6 service, no response to the Complaint, or other indication of service has been filed. Certainly, it 7 may be that the 90-day limit does not apply here because Defendant appears to reside in China. 8 Dkt. No. 1 at 2. But a plaintiff does not have “an unlimited time” for service of process in a 9 foreign country, and the Court may set a reasonable time limit to accomplish such service. See, 10 e.g., Inst. of Cetacean Rsch. v. Sea Shepherd Conservation Soc’y, 153 F. Supp. 3d 1291 , 1320 11 (W.D. Wash. 2015) (expressing concerns about failure to serve foreign party and setting a 12 deadline for such service). Plaintiff has also taken no substantive steps to pursue its case since 13 filing this action that the Court can discern. 14 Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED as follows: 15 Plaintiff is DIRECTED to show cause, within fourteen (14) days of this Order, why 16 Defendant should not be dismissed without prejudice for failure to timely serve process or for 17 failure to prosecute. In the case that Plaintiff argues that the 90-day time limit of Rule 4(m) does 18 not apply, Plaintiff shall provide an update of its efforts to serve Defendant and a date certain by 19 which Plaintiff expects such service to be completed. 20 Dated this 19th day of July 2022. — 21 — A — 22 — Tana Lin United States District Judge — 23 — — 24 —