Filed: Jan. 12, 2015
Latest Update: Jan. 12, 2015
Summary: ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO EXTEND TIME TO SERVE DEFENDANTS; DIRECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF MAXINE M. CHESNEY, Senior District Judge. Before the Court is plaintiff Rash Ghosh's "Motion to Extend Time to Serve Defendants," filed November 21, 2014. The City Defendants 1 have filed opposition, in which Berkeley Housing Authority and Tia Ingram have joined. Plaintiff has not filed a reply. Having read and considered the papers filed in support of and in opposition to the motion, the Court deems
Summary: ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO EXTEND TIME TO SERVE DEFENDANTS; DIRECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF MAXINE M. CHESNEY, Senior District Judge. Before the Court is plaintiff Rash Ghosh's "Motion to Extend Time to Serve Defendants," filed November 21, 2014. The City Defendants 1 have filed opposition, in which Berkeley Housing Authority and Tia Ingram have joined. Plaintiff has not filed a reply. Having read and considered the papers filed in support of and in opposition to the motion, the Court deems ..
More
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO EXTEND TIME TO SERVE DEFENDANTS; DIRECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF
MAXINE M. CHESNEY, Senior District Judge.
Before the Court is plaintiff Rash Ghosh's "Motion to Extend Time to Serve Defendants," filed November 21, 2014. The City Defendants1 have filed opposition, in which Berkeley Housing Authority and Tia Ingram have joined. Plaintiff has not filed a reply. Having read and considered the papers filed in support of and in opposition to the motion, the Court deems the matter appropriate for determination on the parties' respective written submissions, VACATES the hearing scheduled for January 16, 2015, and rules as follows.
Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a defendant must be "served within 120 days after the complaint is filed," and, if not, the district court must "dismiss the action without prejudice against that defendant or order that service be made within a specified time." See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m).
Plaintiff filed his initial complaint on June 24, 2014, and did not effectuate service of process on any defendant prior to the expiration of the 120-day period. By the instant motion, plaintiff states he effectuated service of process on all defendants as of November 19, 2014, and requests the Court extend the deadline to November 19, 2014, i.e., a date 149 days after June 24, 2014.2
In their opposition, the City Defendants argue plaintiff has failed to demonstrate good cause for his failure to complete service of process within 120 days of the filing of the initial complaint. Even assuming, arguendo, plaintiff has not shown good cause for the extension sought,3 a district court has discretion to extend the deadline in the absence of such showing. See Efaw v. Williams, 473 F.3d 1038, 1040 (9th Cir. 2007) (holding Rule 4(m) "permits the district court to grant an extension even in the absence of good cause"). Here, in light of the relatively short length of the requested extension, and given that the City Defendants had actual notice of the lawsuit shortly after the 120-date period expired and do not assert any prejudice from the delay in service, the Court finds it appropriate to extend the service deadline to November 19, 2014, nunc pro tunc.4
Accordingly, plaintiff's motion is hereby GRANTED.
Lastly, as noted above, plaintiff states he effectuated service on all defendants as of November 19, 2014. The Court's review of the docket, however, indicates that plaintiff has not filed proof of service of the summons and complaint on defendant Benjamin McGrew ("McGrew"), who was named in the initial complaint and who has not, to date, appeared in the instant action.5
Accordingly, plaintiff is hereby DIRECTED to file, no later than January 23, 2015, proof of service as to McGrew.
IT IS SO ORDERED.