Vargas v. Snowflake Unified School District No. 5 et al

Filing 8

ORDER denying without prejudice 7 Motion for Extend time to serve. Signed by Senior Judge James A Teilborg on 3/17/2017.(TCA)

Download PDF
1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Oscar Vargas, Plaintiff, 10 11 ORDER v. 12 No. CV-17-08035-PCT-JAT Snowflake Unified School District No. 5, et al., 13 Defendants. 14 15 The Court now rules on Plaintiff Oscar Vargas’ motion requesting an extension of 16 time to serve the Snowflake Unified School District (“the District”) with his complaint. 17 (Doc. 7). 18 Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 4(m), a defendant must be served 19 within 90 days after a complaint is filed. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has 20 explained that a district court must extend this time limit if a plaintiff shows good cause 21 for doing so. Lemoge v. United States, 587 F.3d 1188, 1198 (9th Cir. 2009). 22 Alternatively, a district court may, in its discretion, extend the time for service if the 23 plaintiff has shown that the failure to serve was the result of excusable neglect. Id. 24 Plaintiff’s motion does not show that good cause exists to extend the time to file. 25 Moreover, there has been no determination that Plaintiff in fact served the wrong party; 26 the District makes that argument in its motion to dismiss, which is still pending before 27 this Court. (Doc. 4). The Court therefore finds that Plaintiff’s motion is not ripe. 28 Similarly, the Court will not grant advanced permission for Plaintiff to serve the 1 district by publication. “The decision whether to pursue personal service or service by 2 publication is that of the plaintiff, not the court. Because the court does not preauthorize 3 service by publication, the determination whether publication constitutes adequate service 4 is made later in the case.” Ritchie v. Salvatore Gatto Partners, 222 P.3d 920, 923 n.4 5 (Ariz. App. 2010) (internal citations omitted). 6 For these reasons, 7 IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion to extend time to serve (Doc. 7) is 8 9 DENIED, without prejudice. Dated this 17th day of March, 2017. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -2-

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?