Gilbert v. Oakdale Shopping Center L.L.C., et al.
ORDER GRANTING Plaintiff's 16 Request for Administrative Relief From Service Deadline, signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 1/13/2023. Plaintiff shall serve Defendant Oakdale with the summons and complaint no later than March 13, 2023. (Marrujo, C)
Case 1:22-cv-01305-BAM Document 18 Filed 01/17/23 Page 1 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
OAKDALE SHOPPING CENTER L.L.C.,
Case No. 1:22-cv-01305-BAM
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S
REQUEST FOR ADMINISTRATIVE
RELIEF FROM SERVICE DEADLINE
Currently before the Court is Plaintiff Darren Gilbert’s (“Plaintiff”) request to extend the
time for service of the summons and complaint on Defendant Oakdale Shopping Center L.L.C.
(“Defendant Oakdale”). (Doc. 16.) Defendants Monica Diane Willey and Best Deal Food
Company, Inc. have appeared and answered the complaint. (See Docs. 8, 14.)
Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure governs the time limit for service of the
summons and complaint and provides, in relevant part, as follows:
If a defendant is not served within 90 days after the complaint is filed, the court—
on motion or on its own after notice to the plaintiff—must dismiss the action
without prejudice against that defendant or order that service be made within a
specified time. But if the plaintiff shows good cause for the failure, the court must
extend the time for service for an appropriate period.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). Thus, a showing of good cause requires the Court to grant an extension of
time for service. Id. However, absent a showing of good cause, the Court also has discretion
under Rule 4(m) to either order that service be made within a specified time or to dismiss the
action without prejudice. See id.; In re Sheehan, 253 F.3d 507, 513 (9th Cir. 2001) (“[U]nder the
Case 1:22-cv-01305-BAM Document 18 Filed 01/17/23 Page 2 of 2
terms of the rule, the court’s discretion is broad.”).
Here, more than 90 (90) days have passed since Plaintiff filed the complaint on October
13, 2022, and summons issued. In support of the request for an extension of time to complete
service, Plaintiff asserts that he “has been diligently attempting to serve Defendant [Oakdale]
with the Summons and Complaint, but has not been able to effect service on Defendant to date.”
(Doc. 16 at 1.) According to the declaration of Plaintiff’s counsel, Plaintiff’s process server
attempted to serve Defendant Oakdale at an address identified through review of the California
Secretary of State business search. The process server reported that a female occupant at the
residence address, when called through the intercom on three separate occasions, indicated that
the agent for service was not home. (Doc. 16-1, Declaration of Tanya Moore at ¶¶ 2-3.) On
January 9, 2022, Plaintiff’s counsel, through her paralegal, directed the process server to conduct
a stakeout, but according to the process server, after the first attempt, a female occupant of the
residence answered the door and mentioned that the agent was not home. (Id. at ¶¶ 4-5.)
Plaintiff now intends to request service on Defendant Oakdale at Southstar Financial and
Development Corporation, agent Andrew South, in Portland, Oregon. (Id. at ¶ 6.) Plaintiff
therefore requests that he be given until March 13, 2023, to effect service of the complaint on
Defendant Oakdale. (Doc. 16 at 2.)
Having considered the moving papers, the Court finds good cause to extend the deadline.
Plaintiff has explained efforts to effectuate service and has identified the reasons for delay.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
1. Plaintiff’s Request for Administrative Relief from Service Deadline (Doc.16) is
2. Plaintiff shall serve Defendant Oakdale with the summons and complaint no later
than March 13, 2023.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
January 13, 2023
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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?