Moreira-Brown v. Las Vegas Review Journal Inc. et al

Filing 31

ORDER denying 21 Motion for Service; granting in part and denying in part 22 Motion to Extend Time. FRCP 4(m) dismissal deadline set for 1/9/2017. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 2/7/2017. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - JM)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 11 HERBERT MOREIRA-BROWN, 16 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 17 Pending before the Court are Plaintiff’s motion for service by the U.S. Marshal and his 18 motion to extend time regarding discovery/nondispositive matter. Docket Nos. 21, 22. Plaintiff 19 commenced this action on August 23, 2016. Docket No. 1. On December 8, 2016, the Clerk’s 20 Office filed a notice of intent to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) because 21 Plaintiff had not served Defendant Ademiluyi. Docket No. 12. On December 27, 2016, Plaintiff 22 filed a motion for service by the U.S. Marshal. Docket No. 15. The Court denied that motion 23 without prejudice for failure to include points and authorities. Docket No. 18. On January 9, 2017, 24 Plaintiff filed a proof of service as to Defendant Ademiluyi. Docket No. 20. Plaintiff now asks the 25 Court to deem service effective or, in the alternative, to extend the time to effectuate service and 26 order the U.S. Marshal to serve Defendant Ademiluyi. See, e.g., Docket No. 21 at 7. 12 Plaintiff, 13 vs. 14 LAS VEGAS REVIEW JOURNAL, et al., 15 Defendants. Case No. 2:16-cv-02002-JAD-NJK ORDER (Docket Nos. 21, 22) 27 The Court declines to address the efficacy of Plaintiff’s service. Nothing in this order shall 28 be read as a determination regarding whether service on Defendant Ademiluyi was complete and/or 1 proper. Next, Plaintiff asks the Court to extend time to complete service of process. Docket No. 22 2 at 7-8. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m) provides, 3 4 5 (m) Time Limit for Service. 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. This subdivision (m) does not apply to service in a foreign country under Rule 4(f) or 4(j)(1). 6 7 The Court’s discretion to extend time for service is broad. In re Sheehan, 253 F.3d 507, 513 8 (9th Cir. 2001). The Court will therefore extend the Rule 4(m) deadline to January 9, 2017. 9 Plaintiff’s request for the U.S. Marshal to effectuate service is moot because Plaintiff has already 10 filed a proof of service as to Defendant Ademiluyi on the docket. Docket No. 20. 11 Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to extend time regarding discovery/nondispositive matter, 12 Docket No. 22, is hereby GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Plaintiff’s motion for service 13 by the U.S. Marshal, Docket No. 21, is hereby DENIED as moot. 14 The Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s request to extend the Rule 4(m) dismissal deadline. The 15 deadline is extended to January 9, 2017. The Court DENIES Plaintiff’s request to deem his service 16 on Defendant Ademiluyi proper and complete. 17 IT IS SO ORDERED. 18 Dated: February 7, 2017 19 ___________________________________ NANCY J. KOPPE United States Magistrate Judge 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?