Legal Question in Business Law in California

No. Some courts are more strict about this rule than others. Some set an Order to Show Cause Why Sanctions Should Not Be Imposed for Failure to Serve hearing at the time the complaint is filed, and only take it off calendar when the proof of service is filed. Others wait until the deadline passes and then set an OSC hearing. Others even wait for the first Case Management Conference and then look back to see if there has been substantial compliance. Unless and until there have been repeated failures to serve without good explanation of why service has not been completed the court will not dismiss.

Check the local rules for your jurisdication. Many Courts, like San Diego, have a form you can file if you cannot serve within 60 days. "If the plaintiff cannot complete service within this time period, plaintiff must file a Certificate of Progress with the court indicating why he or she has not completed service and what he or she is doing to effect service" (San Diego County Superior Court Local Form SDSC CIV-144 and San Diego Superior Court Local Rules, Div. II, Civil, Rule 2.1.5.

Am I missing something here? I believe the applicable statute is Code of Civil Procedure section 583.210(a), which says, "The summons and complaint shall be served upon a defendant within three years after the action is commenced against the defendant."

The 60-day rule is the time within which the proof of service shall be filed after the time the defendant must ve served. CCP 583.210(b).

Yes, Mr. Whipple is not aware of the rules of court governing fast track cases.

Mr. McCormick is right. Legally, the court is supposed to set an order to show cause to determine why the complaint has not been served. That order to show cause is directed to the plaintiff. I've seen some judges simply dismiss the case, but they are not supposed to dismiss, until they have held an order to show cause, and monetary sanctions have shown to be ineffective.