Woodard v. Cox et al

Filing 70

ORDER Granting Plaintiff's 68 Motion to Extend Time. Proof of service due by 5/14/2016. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 03/28/2016. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - NEV)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
9
10
GUY R. WOODWARD,
11
Plaintiff(s),
12
vs.
13
JAMES COX, et al.,
14
Defendant(s).
15

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 2:14-cv-00272-RFB-NJK
ORDER
(Docket No. 68)

16

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Extend Time, or Alternatively to Reopen the

17

Timeframe for Service. Docket No. 68. The Court finds the motion properly resolved without oral

18

argument. See Local Rule 78-2. For the reasons stated below, the motion for is GRANTED.

19

The Court must extend the 120-day Rule 4(m) deadline if the serving party shows good cause

20

for failure to serve within 120 days. Lemoge v. United States, 587 F.3d 1188, 1198 (9th Cir. 2009). The

21

Court may extend time for service even after the 120-day period expires. Efaw v. Williams, 473 F.3d

22

1038, 1041 (9th Cir. 2007). If the serving party does not show good cause, the Court has discretion to

23

extend time for service or to dismiss the complaint without prejudice. In re Sheehan, 253 F.3d 507, 513

24

(9th Cir. 2001). The Court’s discretion to extend time for service or to dismiss without prejudice for

25

failure to timely serve is broad. Id.

26

Here, Plaintiff has shown good cause to warrant an extension of the Rule 4(m) deadline. The

27

Court therefore GRANTS Plaintiff a 60-day extension of time to effectuate service on Defendants

28

1

Cheryl Burson, Cheryl Dressler, and Fred Richardson. The Court accordingly extends the Rule 4(m)

2

deadline to May 14, 2016.

3

IT IS SO ORDERED.

4

DATED: March 28, 2016

5
6
7

______________________________________
NANCY J. KOPPE
United States Magistrate Judge

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2