The opinion
1
2
3
4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
JOHN CESARIO, et al.,
7 Case No. 25-cv-01510-DMR
Plaintiffs,
8
v. ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
9 REGARDING SERVICE OF
VISTAGEN THERAPEUTICS INC., et al., COMPLAINT
10
Defendants.
11
12 Plaintiffs John Cesario and David Preka (together, “Plaintiffs”) filed this lawsuit on February
13 13, 2025 and filed an amended complaint on March 10, 2025. [Docket No. 1 (Compl.); Docket
14 No. 4 (Am. Compl.).] On March 26, 2025, the clerk of court issued a summons on the amended
15 complaint to Defendants Ann Cunningham, JoAnne Curley, Maggie Fitzpatrick, Jerry Gin, Jefferies,
16 LLC, Michael Leibowitz, Mark McPartland, Louis Monti, Mary Rotundo, John S. Saxe, Shawn S.
17 Singh, Mark A. Smith, Ralph Snodgrass, Andrew Tsai, Vistagen Therapeutics Inc., and Withum
18 Smith & Brown PC (collectively, “Defendants”).
19 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m), the court must dismiss an action without
20 prejudice if a defendant is not served within 90 days after the complaint is filed. In this case,
21 Plaintiffs should have served Defendants Andrew Tsai, Ann Cunningham, Jefferies, LLC, Jerry Gin,
22 JoAnne Curley, John S. Saxe, Louis Monti, Maggie Fitzpatrick, Mark A. Smith, Mark McPartland,
23 Mary Rotundo, Michael Leibowitz, Ralph Snodgrass, and Shawn K. Singh1 by May 14, 2025, and
24 Defendants Vistagen Therapeutics Inc. and Withum Smith & Brown PC by June 9, 2025. See
25
26
1 The amended complaint (1) continued to name these Defendants; (2) dropped Cindy Anderson,
Colleen Smith, Jason McCarthy, Jerold Dotson, Joshua S. Prince, Latham & Watkins LLP, Mark
27
Flather, Maxim Group, Myles Minter, Reid G. Adler, and Tim Lugo; and (3) added Vistagen
1 Flores v. Doe Agent 1, No. 24-CV-01189-JES-MSB, 2025 WL 96290, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 13,
2 |} 2025) (“The filing of an amended complaint does not reset the 90-day service deadlines for those
3 defendants previously named in the original complaint.”’) (citations omitted).
4 Plaintiffs have not filed a proof of service of summons, so the court assumes that Plaintiffs
5 have not yet served any of the Defendants. The court therefore ORDERS the following:
6 1. By no later than September 5, 2025, Plaintiffs shall file a written statement explaining
7 || why this action should not be dismissed without prejudice for failure to serve the summons and
8 ||complaint on Defendants. Plaintiffs are warned that failure to file a timely response may result
9 ||/in a recommendation that their action be dismissed.
10 2. The August 20, 2025 initial case management conference is VACATED. The court
11 || will reschedule the case management conference, if necessary, at a later date.
12 The court refers Plaintiffs to the section “Representing Yourself” on the Court’s website,
5 13 located at https://cand.uscourts.gov/pro-se-litigants/, as well as the Court’s Legal Help Centers for
14 || unrepresented parties. Parties may schedule an appointment by calling 415-782-8982 or emailing
3 15 fedpro @ sfbar.org.
16
= 17 IT IS SO ORDERED.
|] Dated: August 15, 2025 Lie
onan
20 Chief Magistrate Judge
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28