Opinion

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Case No. CV 26-2315-AS Date June 4, 2026

Title Colton Hajkhalil v. Garfield Beach CVS, LLC, et al.

Present: The Honorable Alka Sagar, United States Magistrate Judge

Alma Felix N/A

Deputy Clerk Court Smart / Recorder

Attorney Present for Plaintiff: Attorney Present for Defendants:

None present None present

Proceedings: (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE SERVICE OF

PROCESS

On September 24, 2025, Plaintiff filed a Complaint in Los Angeles County Superior Court

case no. 25NNCV06742 against CVS Pharmacy, Inc., “Doe 1 (Manager),” and Does 2-50. (See

Dkt. No. 1-1 at 20-24). The next day, CVS Pharmacy, Inc., was served with the Summons and

Complaint. (See Dkt. No. 1 at 3; Dkt. No. 1-1 at 5). 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 to the Complaint in Los Angeles County Superior Court. (See

Dkt. No. 1 at 2; Dkt. No. 1-1 at 26-32). On March 4, 2026, Defendant Garfield Beach CVS

removed the action to this Court.1 (See Dkt. No. 1). On March 11, 2026, the Clerk of the Court

issued a Notice of Assignment to a U.S. Magistrate Judge and Declination of Consent (“Notice of

Assignment”).2 (Dkt. No. 5).

1 Defendant alleged that removal was timely. (See Dkt. No. 1 at 3). The timeliness of

removal has not been challenged and is not at issue at this time.

2 The Notice of Assignment advises that this case has been assigned to U.S. Magistrate

Judge Alka Sagar for all purposes and that any party may decline to consent to that assignment

according to the schedule set forth for such declination. For cases removed to this Court, the

Notice of Assignment provides:

[T]he deadline for each party to return this completed Form is seven (7) calendar

days after service of this Form on that party. For incarcerated plaintiffs appearing

without a lawyer, the deadline to return this completed Form is twenty-one (21)

calendar days after service. For parties listed on the docket on the date of issuance

of this Form, service is effective on the date of issuance. For parties not listed on

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Case No. CV 26-2315-AS Date June 4, 2026

Title Colton Hajkhalil v. Garfield Beach CVS, LLC, et al.

As of this date, however, Plaintiff apparently has taken no action regarding service on any

other Defendant. In particular, he has not filed a proof of service reflecting that Defendant “Doe

1 (Manager)” has been served, nor has he filed a request for the Clerk to issue a Summons as to

any Doe Defendants or sought an extension of time to address this matter.

Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure gives plaintiffs ninety days from the

filing of a complaint to serve all defendants. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). “In an action removed from

state court, the [ninety]-day period to serve process runs from the date of removal to federal court,

rather than the date the action was filed in state court.” Wickersham v. Washington, 2014 WL

3846094, at *2 (W.D. Wash. Aug. 5, 2014); see also Vasquez v. N. County Transit Dist., 292 F.3d

1049, 1053 (9th Cir. 2002) (“After removal, the city neglected to perfect service against the Board

within [ninety] days as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1448 and [Rule] 4(m).”); Rhodes v. Elec. Data

Sys. Corp., 2006 WL 2830165 at *2 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 29, 2006) (denying as “premature” a motion

to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(5) on the grounds that the deadline for service under Rule 4(m) had

not yet lapsed, because “[t]he [ninety] day period runs from the date of removal as opposed to the

date the state court action was filed”). Where a plaintiff fails to meet this deadline, “the court –

on motion or on its own after notice to the plaintiff – must dismiss the action without prejudice

against that defendant or order that service be made within a specified time.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m).

If the plaintiff, however, “shows good cause for the failure, the court must extend the time for

service for an appropriate period.” Id.

Because more than ninety days have passed since this case was removed to this Court,

Plaintiff is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE in writing, within fourteen (14) days of the date of

this Order, why service was not timely made on any “Doe” Defendant and why this case should

not be dismissed without prejudice as to all Doe Defendants for failure to effect service and for

lack of prosecution. Failure to timely file a written response to this Order may result in dismissal

of this action against the Doe Defendants for failure to effect service of process within the time

the docket on the date of issuance, service of this Form must be effectuated by the

initiating party under Local Rule 73-2.1.

(Dkt. No. 5 at 1). Pursuant to Local Rule 73-2.1, each newly served party or party added to the

case must be served the Notice of Assignment at the time of service of the summons and complaint

or other case-initiating document.

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Case No. CV 26-2315-AS Date June 4, 2026

Title Colton Hajkhalil v. Garfield Beach CVS, LLC, et al.

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. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).

Plaintiff is reminded 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 Plaintiff

must file a proof of service indicating that Defendant was served with the Notice of Assignment.

IT IS SO ORDERED.