Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Nexon America Inc. and at least one other plaintiff are suing John Does 1-10 and an in rem defendant, described as All Funds Held By Stripe Inc. and Traceable to John Does 1-10, in the Central District of California (Case No. 2:26-cv-08044). The minute order does not describe the claims or the date the complaint was filed, so it says nothing about the merits.
On October 28, 2026, Judge Stephen V. Wilson issued an in-chambers order on the court's own motion, with no counsel appearing. The order states that no proof of service was filed within 90 days of the complaint for the in rem defendant. It invokes the court's inherent power to dismiss for lack of prosecution, citing Link v. Wabash R. Co., 370 U.S. 626 (1962), and the Rule 4(m) principle that an action must be dismissed without prejudice, absent good cause, when a defendant is not served within 90 days. The order identifies only the in rem defendant as lacking a proof of service and does not address the John Doe defendants.
The Court’s Holding
The order is an order to show cause, not a dismissal. The court ordered the plaintiffs to respond in writing on or before November 4, 2026, explaining why the action should not be dismissed for lack of prosecution. The matter will stand submitted upon the filing of the response under Rule 78, so the court contemplates deciding on the papers. The order warns that failure to respond will be deemed consent to dismissal of the action.
The order explains how the plaintiffs may satisfy it: by showing that service was made within the 90-day period, or by showing good cause for the failure to serve in time, citing Rule 4(m). A plaintiff who needs more time must include in the response a request for an extension of time to serve, together with a proposed order setting a new deadline for filing a proof of service.
The court made no finding that service was defective, that good cause is lacking, or that the case should be dismissed. Its statement rests on the absence of a filed proof of service, which is a procedural observation rather than an adjudicated finding. No dismissal, with or without leave to amend, and no judgment has been entered.
Key Takeaways
- This is an order to show cause issued on the court's own motion; it is not a dismissal, and no judgment has been entered.
- The stated problem is the absence of a filed proof of service on the in rem defendant within 90 days of the complaint, not a finding that service was actually defective.
- Plaintiffs were required to respond in writing by November 4, 2026, showing timely service or good cause for the failure.
- A plaintiff seeking more time must file a request for an extension together with a proposed order setting a new deadline for the proof of service.
- Failure to respond will be deemed consent to dismissal, and the Rule 4(m) dismissal the court described is without prejudice.
Why It Matters
For plaintiffs suing unidentified defendants and in rem property, the order is a reminder that the 90-day service clock of Rule 4(m) runs from the filing of the complaint and that the court monitors it through the docket. The focus on a missing proof of service shows that serving is not enough in the court's eyes; a proof of service must be on file. In actions against funds held by a third-party payment processor, plaintiffs should be ready to document how and when the in rem defendant was served, or to seek more time before the deadline passes.
The order is a chambers minute order in a federal district court, is not designated as a published opinion, and carries no precedential weight. It sets no new rule and applies existing authority to a single docket. What remains open is whether the plaintiffs will show service or good cause, whether the court will extend the service deadline, and whether the in rem defendant or the action will be dismissed without prejudice. Until the court rules, the case remains pending.