Akmal v. Global Scholar et al

Filing 7

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 6 Plaintiff's Motion for Extension of Time in which to effect service, by Judge James L. Robart.(MD)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

8
9
10

MARIYAM AKMAL,

CASE NO. C14-1859JLR

Plaintiff,

11
12

v.

13

GLOBAL SCHOLAR, et al.,

ORDER GRANTING IN PART
AND DENYING IN PART
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR AN
EXTENSION OF TIME IN
WHICH TO EFFECT SERVICE

Defendants.

14
15

I.

16

INTRODUCTION

Before the court is pro se Plaintiff Mariyam Akmal’s motion for an extension of

17 time in which to effect service on the defendants in this action. (Mot. (Dkt. # 6).)
18 Having reviewed the motion, the balance of the record, and the relevant law, the court
19 denies Ms. Akmal’s requested extension but grants a more limited extension as described
20 below.
21
22
ORDER- 1

1
2

II.

BACKGROUND

On December 8, 2014, Ms. Akmal filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma

3 pauperis (“IFP”) and a proposed complaint. (IFP Mot. (Dkt. # 1); id. Ex. 1.) The next
4 day, United States Magistrate Judge James P. Donohue granted Ms. Akmal’s motion for
5 IPS status (IFP Order (Dkt. # 3)), and Ms. Akmal filed her complaint against Defendants
6 Global Scholar (“Global”) and Craig Chesser (Compl. (Dkt. # 4)). The complaint alleges
7 “interference with a contractual relationship[,] including an employment or housing
8 contract” in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981; “religious, racial, gender and age
9 discrimination” in violation of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e; “unfair employment
10 inquiries” in violation of RCW 49.60.180(4) and RCW 49.60.200; and “retaliation for
11 engaging in protected activity in connection with complaints filed [and] the Plaintiff’s
12 participation in the ongoing civil rights investigations with the [Washington] Human
13 Rights Commission [and] the [Equal Employment Opportunity Commission] which
14 continue to date and involve the Defendant(s) [sic] as well as other Defendants not yet
15 named.” (Id. at 2.) Ms. Akmal further claims that Defendants’ actions created a hostile
16 work environment and caused her “to suffer harm in the form of numerous specific lost,
17 withheld or denied job opportunities[.]” (Id. at 3.)
18

On April 2, 2015, Ms. Akmal filed her motion for an extension of time. The

19 motion requests “an additional 120 days in which to [e]ffect service upon the Defendants
20 and to correct the caption in order to correctly identify the names of all of the
21 defendant(s) [sic].” (Mot. at 1.) The basis for this request is that Ms. Akmal “has
22 recently acquired the services of an attorney who may be able to help and/or represent
ORDER- 2

1 her, but the attorney has not had sufficient time in which to adequately review her case.”
2 (Id.) Ms. Akmal’s motion is now before the court.
3
4

III.

DISCUSSION

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) provides, “If a defendant is not served

5 within 120 days after the complaint is filed, the court—on motion or on its own after
6 notice to the plaintiff—must dismiss the action without prejudice against that defendant
7 or order that service be made within a specified time. But if the plaintiff shows good
8 cause for the failure, the court must extend the time for service for an appropriate
9 period.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). Ms. Akmal filed her complaint on December 9, 2014.
10 (See Compl.) As such, she must complete service by April 8, 2015, unless she shows
11 good cause for failing to do so. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). She asks for an additional 120
12 days because she has recently retained an attorney who requires more time to review her
13 case. (See Mot. at 1.)
14

The court finds that allowing Ms. Akmal’s recently retained counsel further time

15 to review her case constitutes good cause for a modest extension of 30 days. Ms.
16 Akmal’s complaint alleges employment discrimination and suggests that the allegedly
17 offending entities and individuals are likely her former colleagues, supervisors, or
18 employers. (See Compl. at 2-3.) A 30-day extension should provide ample time for Ms.
19 Akmal’s new counsel to review the case, identify additional defendants, and effect
20 service. A 120-day extension, on the other hand, would double the normal period for
21 service and could result in an approximately eight-month delay between the filing of the
22 complaint and service on the defendants. Ms. Akmal has not demonstrated good cause
ORDER- 3

1 for such a long extension of the already considerable period for service that Federal Rule
2 of Civil Procedure 4(m) provides.
3

Accordingly, the court denies Ms. Akmal’s request for a 120-day extension of the

4 time for service but grants a limited extension of 30 days. Ms. Akmal must therefore
5 complete service by May 8, 2015. If she fails to do so, the court will dismiss—on its own
6 initiative and without prejudice—the claims against any named defendant that Ms. Akmal
7 has not yet served. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). Furthermore, the court notes that it is not
8 inclined to grant additional extensions of this deadline absent a detailed and persuasive
9 demonstration of good cause.
10
11

IV.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part Ms.

12 Akmal’s motion for an extension (Dkt. # 6) and GRANTS Ms. Akmal an additional 30
13 days in which to effect service. In addition, the court gives NOTICE to Ms. Akmal under
14 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) that the court will dismiss without prejudice the
15 claims against any named defendant that Ms. Akmal has not served by May 8, 2015.
16

Dated this 6th day of April, 2015.

17

19

A

20

JAMES L. ROBART
United States District Judge

18

21
22
ORDER- 4