Wollersheim v. Ngyuen

Filing 28

ORDER Granting 23 Motion to Extend Time (First Request) to Respond to Plaintiffs Amended Complaint re 16 Amended Complaint. The due date for Defendants Nguyen, Reinhart, Lyles, Chun, Jindrich, and Hanna is October 16, 2024. IT IS FURTHER O RDERED that the U.S. Attorney must clarify, no later than September 6, 2024, whether the Court should require Plaintiff to continue to attempt personal and individual service on Defendants Hukill, Rosengren, Collier, Ford, Malone, and Xiong or whet her, upon confirmation of representation by the Department of Justice, service may be accepted on behalf of these individual Defendants. Signed by Magistrate Judge Elayna J. Youchah on 8/27/2024. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - ALZ)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3

***

4

MASON WOLLERSHEIM,

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12

Case No. 2:24-cv-00432-JAD-EJY

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER

FRANCIS T. NGYUEN; LEONARD F.
REINHART; CHRISTIAN L. CLARK;
SAMUEL HUKILL; LUCAS ROSENGREN;
LAKESHA LYLES; DAVID COLLIER;
GARY FORD; CHRISTINA MALONE;
JAMES CHUN; HEDI JEAN RUIZ; JAKE
XIONG; DANIEL JINDRICH; and DAVID
HANNA,
Defendants.

13

On August 19, 2024, the Court entered an Order granting Plaintiff through and including

14

September 19, 2024 to serve Defendants Clark, Collier, Ford, Malone, and Ruiz in the above

15

captioned matter. ECF No. 24. The Order also instructed the U.S. Attorney’s Office to explain

16

whether Defendants Hukill, Rosengren and Xiong were represented by the U.S. Attorney’s Office

17

along with other “Army Defendants.” On August 26, 2024, the Court received a response to its

18

August 19th Order from the U.S. Attorney. ECF No. 25. Two Defendants, Clark and Ruiz, are not

19

members of the U.S. Army and, therefore, must be served by Plaintiff. Id. Plaintiff was given the

20

opportunity to accomplish such service and, thus, no further order is required with respect to these

21

two Defendants. ECF No. 24. With respect to Hukill, Rosengren, Collier, Ford, Malone, and Xiong,

22

it appears they are members of the U.S. Army, but have not been personally served. The U.S.

23

Attorney explains “that the Army … [is] in the process of requesting representation[] under 28 C.F.R.

24

§ 50.15 from the applicable section of the Department of Justice.” ECF No. 25 at 3. What is not

25

clear is whether these individuals must be personally served or whether the Department of Justice

26

will accept service on behalf of these individuals once representation is confirmed.

27

Separate from the above, the Government seeks a sixty (60) day extension of time to file a

28

responsive pleading to Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint on behalf of Defendants Nguyen, Reinhart,
1

1

Lyles, Chun, Jindrich, and Hanna. ECF No. 23, to which Plaintiff responded at ECF No. 26 and

2

Defendants replied at ECF No. 27. The Court grants the sixty (60) day extension as good cause for

3

the extension is established. Not only are Plaintiff’s claims against the Defendants intertwined

4

leading to the efficiency of a collective responsive pleading that may be filed on behalf all members

5

of the U.S. Army, but representation of the Army Defendants is in flux through no fault of their

6

own. The Court further finds Plaintiff demonstrates no prejudice that will arise from the extension.

7

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion for Extension of Time to Respond

8

to Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint (ECF No. 23) is GRANTED. The due date for Defendants

9

Nguyen, Reinhart, Lyles, Chun, Jindrich, and Hanna is October 16, 2024.

10

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the U.S. Attorney must clarify, no later than September

11

6, 2024, whether the Court should require Plaintiff to continue to attempt personal and individual

12

service on Defendants Hukill, Rosengren, Collier, Ford, Malone, and Xiong or whether, upon

13

confirmation of representation by the Department of Justice, service may be accepted on behalf of

14

these individual Defendants. While the Court appreciates personal service may be an option, the

15

U.S. Attorney recognizes that “the waiver [of service] provision is applicable to … individual

16

defendants ….” ECF No. 25 at 4.

17

Dated this 27th day of August, 2024.

18
19
20

ELAYNA J. YOUCHAH
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2