ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS

BENJAMIN H. SETTLE, District Judge.

This matter comes before the Court on Defendant Hanson Motors, Inc.'s ("Hanson") motion to dismiss for insuffiency of process and insufficiency of service of process (Dkt. 5). The Court has considered the pleadings filed in support of and in opposition to the motion and the remainder of the file and hereby grants in part and denies in part the motion for the reasons stated herein.

I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On July 15, 2016, Plaintiff James Pinkerton ("Pinkerton") filed an employment discrimination complaint against Hanson. Dkt. 1.

On December 15, 2016, Hanson filed the instant motion. Dkt. 5. On January 6, 2017, Hanson replied stating that Pinkerton failed to respond and the Court should grant the motion. Dkt. 7. Later that day, Pinkerton filed a response. Dkt. 8. On January 11, 2016, Hanson filed a surreply. Dkt. 10.

II. DISCUSSION

Hanson seeks dismissal of Pinkerton's claims for insufficiency of service of process. The plaintiff bears the burden of establishing the validity of service under Rule 4. See Brockmeyer v. May, 383 F.3d 798, 801 (9th Cir. 2004). In some instances, Rule 4 may be liberally construed "so long as the opposing party receives sufficient notice of the complaint." United Food & Commercial Workers Union v. Alpha Beta Co., 736 F.2d 1371, 1382 (9th Cir. 1984). The sufficient notice exception, however, is not a license to ignore Rule 4. The Ninth Circuit has held that failure to comply with service requirements does not warrant dismissal if: "(a) the party that had to be served personally received actual notice, (b) the defendant would suffer no prejudice from the defect in service, (c) there is a justifiable excuse for the failure to serve properly, and (d) the plaintiff would be severely prejudiced if his complaint were dismissed." Borzeka v. Heckler, 739 F.2d 444, 447 (9th Cir. 1984). A party's pro se status, alone, is not a justifiable excuse for defective service. See Hamilton v. Endell, 981 F.2d 1062, 1065 (9th Cir. 1992).

Although Pinkerton provides some reasons for his failure to serve, Dkt. 8, the Court finds that none rise to the level of a justifiable excuse to fail to deliver a couple documents to his former employer. However, even in unjustified circumstances, the Court may dismiss the action without prejudice or order that proper service be made within a specified time. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m); see also Stevens v. Sec. Pac. Nat'l Bank, 538 F.2d 1387, 1389 (9th Cir. 1976). The Court finds that, in light of Pinkerton's circumstances of dealing with illnesses and losing his home, allowing additional time to effectuate service is warranted. Therefore, the Court grants Hanson's motion on the merits, but denies it as to remedy.

III. ORDER

Therefore, it is hereby ORDERED that Hanson's motion to dismiss for insuffiency of process and insufficiency of service of process (Dkt. 5) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Pinkerton must file an affidavit of service of summons and complaint no later than March 3, 2017. Failure to comply or otherwise respond will result in DISMISSAL without prejudice without further order of the Court.