Alvarez v. Emergency Site Protection, LLC et al

Western District of Texas, txwd-5:2018-cv-01298

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE as to Josue Alvarez, Gennise Garcia, Heriberto Lopez, Jr, Felipe Perez, Dillon Silva, Steven R. Silva as to why the above styled and numbered cause should not be dismissed pursuant to Rule 4(m) and forfailure to prosecute. Plaintiff is notified that the failure to timely and properly respond to this Order to Show Cause will result in the dismissal of these defendants from this case. Show Cause Response due by 4/5/2019,Signed by Judge Fred Biery.

Interested in this case?

Current View

Full Text

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SAN ANTONIO DIVISION JOSUE ALVAREZ, Individually and on) Behalf of all Others Similarly Situated,)) Plaintiff,)) V.) CIVIL ACTION NO. SA-18-CA-1298-FB) EMERGENCY SITE PROTECTION,) LLC; GRYPHON OILFIELD) SOLUTIONS, LLC; and SANCHEZ) OIL & GAS CORPORATION,)) Defendants.) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE Before the Court is the status of the above-styled and numbered cause. Plaintiff initiated this lawsuit with the filing of his original complaint (docket no. 1) on December 11, 2018. Defendant Griffin Oilfield Soluctions, LLC ("Gryphon") and defendant Sanchez Oil and Gas Corporation ("Sanchez") have failed to answer or otherwise appear. The reason for this failure appear appears to be plaintiff's failure to obtain service of the summons and a copy of the complaint upon these defendants. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(c)(1) provides in relevant part: "The plaintiff is responsible for having the summons and complaint served within the time allowed by Rule 4(m) and must furnish the necessary copies to the person who makes service." FED. R. CIV. P. 4(c)(1) (emphasis added). The time limit for service under Rule 4(m) provides in pertinent part: 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). More than 90 days have elapsed since the filing of the complaint and there is no indiction plaintiff has served Gryphon or Sanchez. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiff shall show good cause, on or before April 5, 2019, why the above styled and numbered cause should not be dismissed pursuant to Rule 4(m) and for failure to prosecute. Plaintiff is notified that the failure to timely and properly respond to this Order to Show Cause will result in the dismissal of these defendants from this case. It is so ORDERED. SIGNED this 29th day of March, 2019. _________________________________________________ FRED BIERY UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 2