Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Dew v. City of Seaside, 4:19-CV-06009 HSG. (2019)

Court: District Court, N.D. California Number: infdco20191227556 Visitors: 6
Filed: Dec. 20, 2019
Latest Update: Dec. 20, 2019
Summary: ORDER TO EXTEND TIME LIMIT FOR SERVICE PURSUANT TO FRCP 4(m) HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR. , District Judge . Plaintiff filed an ex parte application for an order extending time for an additional 90 days to serve the summons and complaint upon Defendant Manuel Fernandez. Good cause appearing, the court GRANTS an extension of time to serve the summons and complaint on Defendant until March 25, 2019. I. Background Plaintiffs filed the instant action on September 24, 2019. The matter was assigned
More

ORDER TO EXTEND TIME LIMIT FOR SERVICE PURSUANT TO FRCP 4(m)

Plaintiff filed an ex parte application for an order extending time for an additional 90 days to serve the summons and complaint upon Defendant Manuel Fernandez. Good cause appearing, the court GRANTS an extension of time to serve the summons and complaint on Defendant until March 25, 2019.

I. Background

Plaintiffs filed the instant action on September 24, 2019. The matter was assigned to this above entitled court on December 11, 2019. The summons was issued on December 13, 2019. On December 19, Plaintiffs made diligent efforts to serve Defendant Fernandez at his last known work address at the Seaside Police Department. The Seaside Police Department declined to provide a forwarding address.

II. Analysis

Plaintiffs are normally allotted 90 days to serve defendants after a complaint is filed. Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 4(m). However, if a Plaintiff shows good cause for failure to serve within the 90-day period, the court is required to extend time for service. Id. Under the same rule, the court has broad discretion to extend time for service in absence of good cause. Efaw v. Williams, 473 F.3d 1038, 1041 (9th Cir. 2003).

On December 19, Plaintiffs made diligent efforts to serve Defendant Fernandez at his last known work address. Plaintiffs were not informed that Defendant Fernandez was no longer working as an officer at the Seaside Police Department prior to service, and the Seaside Police Department declined to provide a forwarding address. Plaintiff contends that Officer Fernandez' address will be provided in initial disclosures, interrogatories, or informal discovery within answers to interrogatories. Plaintiffs further contend that independent investigation will be unsuccessful due to common spelling of Officer Fernandez' name.

Under these circumstances, Plaintiffs have demonstrated good cause to extend time for service. The court will allow an extension to effect service.

III. Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs' motion to extend time for service of the summons and complaint is GRANTED. Plaintiffs may serve Defendant Fernandez with the summons and complaint and file proof of service with the court no later than March 25, 2020.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer