Van Ornum v. US Department of Health and Human Service et al

Filing 12

MEMORANDUM DECISION and Order-granting 11 Motion for Extension of Time; Motions terminated: 11 MOTION for Extension of Time for mandatory extended service of process filed by Sandra C.K. Van Ornum. This shall be the final extension based thereon. Failure to effect service by such date shall result in the Courts immediate dismissal of the complaint. Signed by Magistrate Judge Dustin B. Pead on 1/8/14. (jmr)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH
CENTRAL DIVISION

SANDRA C. K. VAN ORNUM,

MEMORANDUM DECISION
AND ORDER

Plaintiff,
vs.

Case No. 2:13-cv-671

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH and
HUMAN SERVICES, HAWAII
PACIFIC HEALTH, KUAKINI
HEALTH, and WILLIAM GOODHUE,
JR.,

District Judge Clark Waddoups
Magistrate Judge Dustin B. Pead

Defendants.

This matter was referred to Magistrate Judge Dustin Pead by District Judge Clark
Waddoups pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1)(B) (doc. 4). Currently before the Court is Plaintiff
Sandra C. K. Van Ornum’s (“Plaintiff”) “Amended Motion For Mandatory Extended Service Of
Process” seeking an extension of time within which to serve her complaint on Defendants U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services, Hawaii Pacific Health, Kuakini Health and William
Goodhue, Jr. (“Defendants”) (doc. 11).
On November 21, 2013, Magistrate Pead issued a Memorandum Decision & Order
allowing Plaintiff “until January 29, 2014—approximately six months from the date of filing her
July 22, 2013 administrative claim—to serve Defendants” (doc. 10). The Court granted Plaintiff
an extension based, in part, upon her assertion that she was awaiting the Department of Health

and Human Services’ final administrative disposition of her claims before serving Defendants in
the present action (doc. 9).
In Plaintiff’s most recent filing, she requests an amendment to the Court’s prior
extension arguing that the January 29, 2014, service date arrived at by the Court improperly
reflects six months after her U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ complaint was
dated (doc. 11). Instead, Plaintiff argues that the Court should extended the date of service in
this action to February 27, 2014—six months after the August 27, 2013, date that she actually
presented her complaint to the US Department of Health and Human Services. Id.
Accepting Plaintiff’s assertion that the administrative action could take up to six months
from the date that she presented her claim, the Court hereby finds good cause to grant her
amended request for extension. Accordingly, Plaintiff shall have until February 27,
2014—approximately six months from the date of August 27, 2013 when she presented her
administrative claim to the US Department of Health and Human Services—to serve the
Defendants in this action.
This shall be the final extension based thereon. Failure to effect service by such date
shall result in the Court’s immediate dismissal of the complaint.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this 8th day of January, 2014.

___________________________
Dustin B. Pead
United States Magistrate Judge
2