Check how courts have cited this case. Use our free citator for the most current treatment.
No. 10160951
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
R. Kulick v. Marissa Mills
No. 10160951 · Decided October 24, 2024
No. 10160951·Ninth Circuit · 2024·
FlawFinder last updated this page Apr. 2, 2026
Case Details
Court
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided
October 24, 2024
Citation
No. 10160951
Disposition
See opinion text.
Full Opinion
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 24 2024
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
R. J. KULICK, No. 23-55663
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:23-cv-00571-GW-PVC
v.
MEMORANDUM*
MARISSA MILLS, AKA Marissa Hemme;
ADELE MILLS, AKA Adele Reinstein;
SHARON TOWERS LLC, AKA Sharon
Towers Apartments; ANNE MILLS;
HAROLD MILLS; RITA SINDER; JACK
SINDER; MEISLER TRUST
CONSOLIDATION PARTNERSHIP;
SHARON TOWERS CO., a general
partnership; ADELE TRUST; ADRIAN
GUERRERO; PETER STEINMAN; DOES,
1 to 100, inclusive,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
George H. Wu, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted October 16, 2024**
Before: SILVERMAN, R. NELSON, and MILLER, Circuit Judges.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
R. J. Kulick appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his
action alleging various federal claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion a dismissal for failure to serve the
summons and complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m). Oyama v.
Sheehan (In re Sheehan), 253 F.3d 507, 511 (9th Cir. 2001). We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Kulick’s action
without prejudice because Kulick failed to effect proper service of the summons
and complaint, despite being given notice, opportunities, and directives to do so,
and Kulick did not establish good cause for his failure to serve. See Fed. R. Civ. P.
4(a)-(c) (setting forth requirements for service of process, including that the
summons must be served with a copy of the complaint); Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m)
(explaining that district court may dismiss for failure to serve after providing
notice and absent a showing of good cause).
All pending requests are denied.
AFFIRMED.
2 23-55663
Plain English Summary
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 24 2024 MOLLY C.
Key Points
01NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 24 2024 MOLLY C.