LiveCareer Ltd v. Su Jia Technolgies Ltd et al

Filing 39

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO SERVE SU JIA TECHNOLOGIES LTD. by Judge Jon S. Tigar granting 30 Motion FOR 60-DAY EXTENSION OF TIME TO SERVE SU JIA TECHNOLOGIES LTD. (wsn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/15/2014)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

LIVECAREER LTD,

Case No. 14-cv-03336-JST

Plaintiff,
8
v.
9
10

SU JIA TECHNOLOGIES LTD., DBA
RESUMEGENIUS.COM, et al.,

Re: ECF No. 30

Defendants.

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR
EXTENSION OF TIME TO SERVE SU
JIA TECHNOLOGIES LTD.

Before the Court is an unopposed motion filed by Plaintiff LiveCareer Ltd. (“LiveCareer”)

12
13

seeking a 60-day extension of time to serve Defendant Su Jia Technologies Ltd. (“Su Jia

14

Technologies”). ECF No. 30. For the reasons set forth below, the Court will GRANT Plaintiff’s

15

Motion. The hearing on this matter, currently scheduled for January 8, 2015, is hereby

16

VACATED.

17

I.

18

BACKGROUND
On July 23, 2014, LiveCareer filed a complaint against Resume Companion LLC

19

(“Resume Companion”) and Su Jia Technologies, “seeking injunctive relief, damages, and

20

attorneys’ fees based upon (i) copyright infringement under the copyright laws of the United

21

States, 17 U.S.C. § 101 et seq. and (ii) federal unfair competition and false designation of origin

22

under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a).” ECF No. 1 ¶ 1. The 120-day time limit for service under Federal

23

Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) expired on November 20, 2014. ECF No. 30 at 2. LiveCareer

24

timely completed service on Resume Companion, and states that it is in the process of serving

25

Cyprus-based Su Jia Technologies. ECF No. 1 ¶ 4; ECF No. 14; ECF No. 30 at 1. In its motion,

26

filed on November 18, 2014, LiveCareer requests a 60-day extension of time to serve Su Jia

27

Technologies. ECF No. 30. LiveCareer states that it is “diligently attempting to complete service

28

of process on Su Jia Technologies” pursuant to the procedures of the Hague Convention on the

1

Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters (“Hague

2

Convention”), and that it expects service to be completed by the end of the year. Id. at 1, 3.

3

II.

LEGAL STANDARD
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m):

4
5

If a defendant is not served within 120 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.

6
7
8

See also Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1) (“When an act may or must be done within a specified time, the

10

court may, for good cause, extend the time . . . with or without motion or notice if the court acts,

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

9

or if a request is made, before the original time or its extension expires . . .”); Ahanchian v. Xenon

12

Pictures, Inc., 624 F.3d 1253, 1259 (9th Cir. 2010) (“[R]equests for extensions of time made

13

before the applicable deadline has passed should normally be granted in the absence of bad faith

14

on the part of the party seeking relief or prejudice to the adverse party.” (internal alterations

15

omitted)). “Whether good cause exists is determined on a case by case basis.” Zoosk, Inc. v.

16

Dyle, No. 10-cv-04545-LB, 2011 WL 635279, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 11, 2011) (citing In re

17

Sheehan, 253 F.3d 507, 512 (9th Cir. 2001)). A plaintiff may show good cause where it has

18

“attempted to serve the defendants, was confused about the requirements for service of process, or

19

was prevented from effecting service within the 120 day limit by factors beyond [its] control.”

20

Wei v. State of Hawaii, 763 F.2d 370, 372 (9th Cir. 1985) (citations omitted).
Service of process on a foreign corporation is governed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

21
22

4(h) which, in conjunction with Rule 4(f), provides for such a defendant to be served “by any

23

internationally agreed means of service that is reasonably calculated to give notice, such as those

24

authorized by the Hague Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial

25

Documents.” See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(f)(1), (h)(2).

26

III.

27
28

DISCUSSION
LiveCareer has shown good cause for an extension of time to serve Su Jia Technologies.

LiveCareer has successfully served Resume Companion and has made reasonable efforts to serve
2

1

Su Jia Technologies pursuant to the procedures of the Hague Convention. ECF No. 30 at 3. There

2

is no suggestion that LiveCareer has acted in bad faith, and LiveCareer expects service to be

3

completed by the end of the year. Id. The Court is satisfied that, at this early stage in the

4

litigation, the extension of time will not prejudice Su Jia Technologies. Any dismissal of the

5

complaint for failure to timely effect service of process would, however, prejudice LiveCareer and

6

would undermine the “general purpose” of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to “see[] that

7

cases are tried on the merits.” Ahanchian, 624 F.3d at 1258-59.

8

IV. CONCLUSION

9

For the foregoing reasons, LiveCareer’s motion for a 60-day extension of time to serve Su
Jia Technologies is GRANTED. The January 8, 2015 hearing on this matter is hereby

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

VACATED.

12
13

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: December 15, 2014

14
15
16

______________________________________
JON S. TIGAR
United States District Judge

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3