Li v. Suo et al

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
United States District Court
Northern District of California
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
YAN-TAO LI,
Plaintiff,
v.
JIE SUO, et al.,
Defendants.
Case No. 24-cv-05055-AMO
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
On August 12, 2024, Plaintiff Yan-Tao Li filed a complaint against Defendants Jie Suo,
Roger W. Anderson, FCI Lender, Inc., and California TD Specialists.1 Dkt. No. 1. On June 5,
2025, Li filed an amended complaint which named the same defendants except Suo. Dkt. No. 23.
The Clerk of Court issued a summons for Defendants Anderson, California TD Specialists, and
FCI Lender on June 5, 2025. Dkt. No. 22. A plaintiff is responsible for having the summons and
complaint served on defendants within 90 days of filing a complaint.2 Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c), (m).
However, to date, Li has not filed a proof of service with the Court showing that he properly
effected service on the two Defendants that remain in this action – California TD Specialists and
FCI Lender. Thus, the Court ORDERS Li to show cause why this action should not be dismissed
for failure to serve.
1 This Order lays out an abbreviated procedural history of the action, as relevant to the instant
Order.
2 The Court notes that “[a] general appearance or responsive pleading by a defendant that fails to
dispute personal jurisdiction will waive any defect in service or personal jurisdiction.” Benny v.
Pipes, 799 F.2d 489, 492 (9th Cir. 1986), amended, 807 F.2d 1514 (9th Cir. 1987). Defendants
Anderson, FCI Lender, Inc., and California TD Specialists filed an opposition to Li’s motion for a
temporary restraining order. Dkt. No. 7. But the opposition expressly stated that “Plaintiff has
failed to properly or timely serve defendants[.]” Dkt. No. 7 at 2. Thus, Defendants have not
waived any challenge to service.
Case 3:24-cv-05055-AMO Document 32 Filed 02/24/26 Page 1 of 3

2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
United States District Court
Northern District of California
Additionally, after the Court granted Defendant Anderson’s motion to dismiss without
leave to amend on January 27, 2026, it ordered the remaining parties to file a case management
statement no later than noon on February 17, 2026. Dkt. No. 29. No such statement was filed, so
the Court issued an order admonishing the parties for their noncompliance and directing them to
file a statement no later than February 20, 2026, at 5:00 p.m. Dkt. No. 31. Again, no statement
was filed. While Li’s failure to properly serve the summons and complaint on the remaining
Defendants likely explains their failure to file anything in response to the Court’s orders, it does
not explain Li’s failure to comply. Accordingly, the Court further ORDERS Li to show cause
why this action should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 41(b), as he has twice failed to comply with Court-ordered deadlines.
In summary, Li is ORDERED to show good cause why the Court should not dismiss this
action pursuant to Rule 41 for failure to prosecute and pursuant to Rule 4 for failure to serve. Li
SHALL file a written response to this Order, no longer than three pages, by March 23, 2026. Li’s
response shall describe why he has not yet served Defendants FCI Lender, Inc. and California TD
Specialists, how he intends to effectuate service should the Court extend his time to do so, and
why he has not complied with the Court’s recent orders. Failure to respond to this Order will
result in dismissal of this case without further notice. Further, because no case management
statement was filed, the Court VACATES the case management conference set for February 26,
2026.
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
Case 3:24-cv-05055-AMO Document 32 Filed 02/24/26 Page 2 of 3

3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
United States District Court
Northern District of California
The Court reminds Li that resources are available for parties who are representing
themselves in the Northern District of California. The Court encourages all self-represented
litigants to consult with the Federal Pro Bono Project (sometimes also called the Legal Help
Center), though this is optional. To schedule an appointment with the Legal Help Center, email
fedpro@sfbar.org or call (415) 782-8982. The Northern District of California website also has
various resources available, including a Pro Se Handbook about how to represent oneself in court.
These resources are available online at: https://www.cand.uscourts.gov/pro-se-litigants/. Relevant
here, Chapter 8 of the Handbook explains the rules for serving documents on defendants in a
lawsuit.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 24, 2026
ARACELI MARTÍNEZ-OLGUÍN
United States District Judge
Case 3:24-cv-05055-AMO Document 32 Filed 02/24/26 Page 3 of 3