Dominguez v. Freedom Plaza Limited Partnership et al

Filing 20

ORDER granting Plaintiffs' 19 Motion to Remove Document from Court Record; the Clerk is directed to re-file document 1 except that pages 4 through 10 shall be re-filed as a sealed attachment which shall not be unsealed absent prior court order; Plaintiffs shall serve process on the Defendants, and each of them, by 10/29/10 or this lawsuit may be dismissed pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(m) and 41(b). Signed by Magistrate Judge Lawrence O Anderson on 10/7/10.(REW)

Dominguez v. Freedom Plaza Limited Partnership et al

Doc. 20

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

E d w a r d Dominguez and Roberta) Dominguez, husband and wife, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) vs. ) ) ) Freedom Plaza Limited Partnership, dba) Freedom Plaza Care Center, an Arizona) limited partnership; ARC HDV, L.L.C., a) limited liability company, ) ) Defendants. ) ) )

No. CV-10-0840-PHX-LOA ORDER

Responding to the Court's September 20, 2010 OSC why this case should not
be dismissed for failure to comply with Court orders pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b), pro se Plaintiffs filed a timely response entitled "Motion to Remove Document from Court Record

and Notice to Court regarding Service of Process." (Doc. 19) Plaintiffs indicate "they have hired Nationwide Legal Services to serve both Defendants by October 15, 2010 as ordered by the Court . . . ." (Id. at 1)
Plaintiffs also move the Court to strike from the court record, doc. 1 at 4-10,

a "privileged" memorandum which was inadvertently attached to the Complaint that
Plaintiffs claim is protected by the attorney-client privilege. Rather than strike the document,

the Court will order the Clerk of the Court to re-file document 1 except that pages 4 through 10 shall be re-filed as a sealed attachment. Whether the sealed attorney-client memorandum

Dockets.Justia.com

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

is later disclosed to Defendants shall abide by further motion and order of the Court. Because Plaintiffs are pro se, have generally complied with prior court orders by demonstrating due diligence under the circumstances to pursue this lawsuit, and have represented that both Defendants will be served with process by October 15, 2010, the Court will extend the Rule 4(m) service deadline to Friday, October 29, 2010. Because it has been nearly six months since Plaintiffs filed this lawsuit, the Court's broad discretion to extend
the time for service under Rule 4(m) is not "limitless." Efaw v. Williams, 473 F.3d 1038 (9th Cir. 2007)

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs' Motion to Remove Document from Court Record, doc. 19, is GRANTED. The Clerk of the Court is directed to re-file document 1 except that pages 4 through 10 shall be re-filed as a sealed attachment which shall not be unsealed absent prior court order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, absent an extension upon a showing of good cause and due diligence, Plaintiffs shall serve process on the Defendants, and each of them, on or before Friday, October 29, 2010 or this lawsuit may be dismissed pursuant to
Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(m) and 41(b) . DATED this 7th day of October, 2010.

-2-