serve the summons and complaint in a timely manner. Oyama v. Sheehan (In re Sheehan), 253 F.3d 507, 511 (9th Cir.2001). We vacate and remand. Contrary to Wang’s contentions, Wang did not properly serve the summons and complaint. See Barlow v. Ground, 39 F.3d 231, 234 (9th Cir.1994) (“Although California law does permit service of a summons by mail, such service is valid only if a signed acknowledgment is returned and other requirements are complied with.”); see also Cal.Civ.Proc.Code § 415.30 (listing the requirements for service by mail under California law). However, the district court abused its discretion in dismissing sua sponte Wang’s action under Rule 4(m) because it did not first give Wang notice and opportunity to show good cause why service was not made. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(m) (<HOLDING>); In re Sheehan, 258 F.3d at 512-13 (discussing
recognizing that a district court may sua sponte dismiss a complaint for failure to serve after notice to the plaintiff holding that a court may sua sponte dismiss pursuant to rule 41b for failure to comply with a court order holding that district courts may dismiss a frivolous complaint sua sponte even when the plaintiff has paid the required filing fee holding that district court may dismiss frivolous complaint sua sponte notwithstanding fact the plaintiff has paid statutory filing fee holding that a district court may dismiss a frivolous complaint sua sponte notwithstanding the fact that the plaintiff paid the statutory filing fee