Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Doublas Sed v. Roy Egari, et al., No. 8:26-cv-02013, is a civil action pending in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. According to the court, 90 days have passed since the plaintiff filed the complaint, yet no proof of service has been filed. The order addresses only defendant Roy Egari. The minutes do not describe the underlying claims, give the complaint's filing date, or say anything about other defendants covered by the caption's 'et al.'
The court relied on the principle that it is the plaintiff's responsibility to move a case toward a merits disposition, which includes timely serving the complaint and filing a proof of service. It quoted Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m): absent a showing of good cause, if a defendant is not served within 90 days after the complaint is filed, the court must dismiss the action. On October 27, 2026, Judge Fred W. Slaughter issued the order in chambers on the court's own motion. No counsel appeared for either side, and no hearing was held.
The Court’s Holding
The court dismissed nothing. It ordered the plaintiff to show cause in writing, no later than October 29, 2026, why the action should not be dismissed for lack of prosecution as to Egari. The order is interlocutory and not a final judgment. The court made no finding that good cause is lacking, and the plaintiff has not yet been heard.
As an alternative to a written response, the court said it would accept either of two filings by the same date: a notice of voluntary dismissal under Rule 41 as to this defendant, or a proof of service of the summons and complaint. If Egari's deadline to answer has already passed when proof of service is filed, that filing alone will not suffice. The plaintiff must also file a request for entry of default or the defendant's answer, a stipulation extending the time to respond that complies with Local Rule 8.3, or a notice of voluntary dismissal.
The order states that no oral argument will be heard unless the court orders it, and that the matter will stand submitted upon a timely and appropriate response. It warns that failing to respond may result in dismissal without further notice or order. For its authority to dismiss on its own motion, the court cited Rule 41(b), Local Rule 41-6, Link v. Wabash R.R., Hells Canyon Pres. Council v. U.S. Forest Serv., and Ash v. Cvetkov. The order does not say whether any eventual dismissal would be with or without prejudice.
Key Takeaways
- A district court may issue an order to show cause on its own motion when no proof of service is on file 90 days after the complaint was filed; the order is a warning, not a dismissal.
- The plaintiff bears the burden of serving each defendant and moving the case forward, and Rule 4(m) calls for dismissal absent a showing of good cause.
- Filing a late proof of service may not be enough: if the defendant's time to answer has passed, the plaintiff must also file a request for default, the defendant's answer, a Local Rule 8.3 stipulation, or a voluntary dismissal.
- The response window was only two days, and failure to respond may lead to dismissal without further notice, though the order does not say whether any dismissal would be with prejudice.
- The order is limited to defendant Egari and says nothing about the status of any other defendant.
Why It Matters
This is a routine but instructive case-management order. It shows how a Central District judge uses a show-cause order to enforce the 90-day service period and to keep defendants from remaining unserved while a case sits on the docket. The list of acceptable responses is practical. It steers the plaintiff toward serving the defendant and, where the answer date has passed, toward seeking default or a stipulation, or else dropping the defendant.
The order is a minute order and carries no precedential weight. It decides no contested question and makes no finding on good cause. Several matters remain open: whether Sed responds by October 29, 2026, whether Egari was ever served, whether the court dismisses Egari and on what terms, and how the case proceeds against any other defendants. Litigants should read it as a reminder to monitor service deadlines and to file proof of service promptly.