Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Colton Hajkhalil filed a complaint in Los Angeles County Superior Court on September 24, 2025 (case no. 25NNCV06742), naming CVS Pharmacy, Inc., a "Doe 1 (Manager)," and Does 2-50. CVS Pharmacy, Inc. was served with the summons and complaint the following day. On October 15, 2025, defendant Garfield Beach CVS, LLC — purportedly on behalf of itself and the erroneously sued and served CVS Pharmacy, Inc. — filed an answer in state court. On March 4, 2026, Garfield Beach CVS removed the action to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, and the timeliness of removal was not challenged.
On March 11, 2026, the Clerk issued a Notice of Assignment to U.S. Magistrate Judge Alka Sagar for all purposes, subject to each party's right to decline consent under the schedule in the notice. On June 4, 2026, the court issued an order to show cause re service of process because more than ninety days had passed since removal and plaintiff apparently had not served any Doe defendants, including "Doe 1 (Manager)." The court explained that under Rule 4(m) and decisions such as Wickersham v. Washington and Rhodes v. Elec. Data Sys. Corp., the ninety-day service period in a removed action runs from the date of removal to federal court, not from the state-court filing date.
On June 16, 2026, plaintiff's counsel filed a declaration proposing to seek discovery to identify the Doe defendants and requesting an extension of time. The same day, the court vacated the June 4 order to show cause and granted plaintiff an additional ninety days to complete discovery designed to ascertain the identities of the Doe defendants and to serve them.
The Court’s Holding
The court found that the ninety-day extension ended on September 16, 2026, and that as of the date of the order plaintiff still had not filed a proof of service as to any Doe defendants, had not filed a request for the Clerk to issue a summons as to any Doe defendants, and had not sought a further extension of time. Accordingly, the court again ordered plaintiff to show cause in writing, within fourteen days of the date of the order, why the case should not be dismissed without prejudice as to all Doe defendants for failure to effect service and for lack of prosecution.
The order warned that failure to timely file a written response could result in dismissal of the action against the Doe defendants for failure to effect service of process within the time specified by Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, for failure to prosecute and/or for failure to obey a court order under Rule 41(b). The court also reminded plaintiff that each newly served party or party added to the case must be served with the Notice of Assignment at the time of service of the summons and complaint, and that plaintiff must file a proof of service indicating that the defendant was served with the Notice of Assignment.
Key Takeaways
- In an action removed from state court, the ninety-day period to serve process under Rule 4(m) runs from the date of removal to federal court, not from the date the complaint was filed in state court.
- A plaintiff who receives an extension to identify and serve Doe defendants must still file a proof of service, request issuance of a summons, or seek further relief before the extension expires.
- Failure to respond to an order to show cause concerning service can lead to dismissal without prejudice of the claims against the Doe defendants under Rule 4(m) and Rule 41(b).
- In the Central District of California, any newly served party must be served with the Notice of Assignment to a magistrate judge at the time of service of the summons and complaint, with a proof of service filed.
- The court gave plaintiff a final fourteen-day window to justify in writing why the Doe defendants should not be dismissed.
Why It Matters
The order illustrates how the Central District polices service deadlines after removal, particularly for Doe defendants whose identities are unknown. Even after vacating an initial order to show cause and granting a generous ninety-day discovery extension, the court will move toward dismissal without prejudice when the plaintiff files no proof of service, requests no summons, and seeks no further extension.
The decision also underscores the district's local requirement that newly served parties receive the Notice of Assignment to a magistrate judge along with the summons and complaint — a procedural step that can be overlooked when additional defendants are brought into a removed case.