Opinions and documents
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11 BLOOM FRESH INTERNATIONAL
Case No. 1:25-cv-01305-JLT-CDB
LIMITED,
12
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY
Plaintiff,
UNSERVED DEFENDANTS SHOULD NOT
13
BE DISMISSED FOR PLAINTIFF’S
v.
FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE
14
COURT’S ORDERS AND FED. R. CIV. P.
JESSE SOLORIO, et al.,
4(m)
15
Defendants.
ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO
16
APPLY FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT AND
TO MOVE FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT
17
7 Day Deadline
18
19 Plaintiff Bloom Fresh International Limited (“Plaintiff”) initiated this action with the filing
20 of a complaint against Defendants Jesse Solorio, Del Sol Produce Sales, Inc., Jesse Solorio & Sons
21 Cold Storage, Inc., Crescensio A. Mena, and Patricio A. Mena (collectively, “Defendants”) on
22 October 2, 2025. (Doc. 1). The next day, the Court entered an order setting a mandatory
23 scheduling conference and directed Plaintiff to “diligently pursue service of summons and
24 complaint” and “promptly file proofs of service.” (Doc. 5 at 1). The order further advised Plaintiff
25 that failure to timely complete service “may result in the imposition of sanctions, including the
26 dismissal of unserved defendants.” Id.
27 To date, it has been 90 days since Plaintiff filed its complaint and Plaintiff has not filed
28 proof of service nor any report setting forth an explanation for the failure to serve organizational
1 Defendants Del Sol Produce Sales, Inc. and Jesse Solorio & Sons Cold Storage, Inc.
2 (“organizational Defendants”). Although Plaintiff pleads on information and belief that Defendant
3 Jesse Solorio operates and owns the organizational Defendants (Doc. 1 ¶¶ 8-9), the Court cannot
4 presume that service effected as to Defendant Jess Solorio (Doc. 6) constitutes completed service
5 as to the organizational Defendants without the return of summonses returned executed and/or
6 other form of proof of service.
7 Local Rule 110 provides that “[f]ailure of counsel or of a party to comply with these Rules
8 or with any order of the Court may be grounds for imposition by the Court of any and all
9 sanctions…within the inherent power of the Court.” The Court has the inherent power to control
10 its docket and may, in the exercise of that power, impose sanctions where appropriate, including
11 dismissal of the action. Bautista v. Los Angeles County, 216 F.3d 837, 841 (9th Cir. 2000).
12 In addition, Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides: “If a defendant is
13 not served within 90 days after the complaint is filed, the court - on motion or on its own after
14 notice to the plaintiff - must dismiss the action without prejudice against that defendant or order
15 that service be made within a specified time.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). Absent a showing of good
16 cause, failure to comply with Rule 4(m) requires dismissal of any unserved defendant.
17 Accordingly, the Court will order Plaintiff to show cause what the organizational
18 Defendants should not be dismiss under Rule 4(b).
19 Separately, because it appears from the docket that Defendant Jesse Solorio has failed to
20 file a responsive pleading (see Doc. 6) or otherwise appear in the action, the Court will order
21 Plaintiff to apply to the Clerk of the Court for entry of default and thereafter to file a motion for
22 default judgment.
23 Conclusion and Order
24 Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that, within seven (7) days of entry of
25 this order, Plaintiff SHALL show cause in writing why Defendants Del Sol Produce Sales, Inc.
26 and Jesse Solorio & Sons Cold Storage, Inc., should not be dismissed for Plaintiff’s failure to serve
27 the summons and complaint in a timely manner under the Court’s orders and Rule 4(m).
28 And it is FURTHER ORDERED that, within seven (7) days of entry of this order, Plaintiff
1 || SHALL file an application for entry of default against Defendant Jesse Solorio, and within 30 days
2 || of any entry of default by the Clerk of the Court, Plaintiff SHALL file and serve upon Defendant
3 || Jesse Solorio a motion for default judgment identifying therein the noticed hearing date and
4 || informing Defendant of his right to file an opposition and appear for the motion hearing.
5 || IT IS SO ORDERED.
6 Dated: _ December 31, 2025 | Ww Vv Ry
7 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Not legal advice. These patterns come from public court records, not ratings of judges as people. They may reflect the types of cases a judge handles, local procedures or other factors, and they do not account for the facts of any individual case. Past patterns do not predict future rulings. Records can be incomplete, months behind current activity, or matched to the wrong person; sealed and confidential cases are not included. Use this as one piece of information, never the sole basis for legal strategy or a recusal motion. Full disclaimer: https://judgefinder.io/legal/disclaimer Read the full disclaimer.