ME2 Productions Inc v. Doe 1 et al

Filing 17

ORDER denying plaintiff's 13 Motion for extension of time in which to serve the complaint. This action is hereby DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). Signed by Judge Robert S. Lasnik. (PM)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

6
7

ME2 PRODUCTIONS, INC.,

8
9
10
11

Plaintiff,
Case No. C17-0694RSL
v.
MADALYNN ALEXANDER, et al.,

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
EXTENSION OF TIME AND
DISMISSING CASE

Defendants.

12
13

This matter comes before the Court on plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time

14

in which to serve the complaint. Dkt. # 13. A party generally has 90 days after a

15

complaint is filed in which to serve the defendant. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). It can be

16

challenging to meet this deadline in BitTorrent cases where plaintiff must first conduct

17

discovery from the ISP before it can identify, name, and serve the defendant. It can be

18

done, however, and the Court has repeatedly indicated that it expects at least a good faith

19

effort to comply with the service deadline. In this case, the motion for leave to conduct

20

expedited discovery was granted in a timely manner, the ISP responded promptly, and

21

plaintiff appropriately pursued an amicable resolution of the case before utilizing the

22

waiver of service procedure set forth in Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(d). Plaintiff, however, forgot to

23

calendar the service and waiver of service deadlines: no further attempt at service was

24

made until this motion was filed.

25

Plaintiff argues that the failure to calendar the service and waiver of service

26
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR EXTENSION
OF TIME AND DISMISSING CASE - 1

1

deadlines was “[l]ikely due in part” to counsel’s unexpected shoulder surgery on July 12,

2

2017, and/or staff turnover. Dkt. # 14 at 3. The facts do not support this assertion. The

3

service deadline was established -- and should have been calendared -- in May 2017, long

4

before counsel’s shoulder surgery or the loss of his legal assistant. Similarly the waiver of

5

service deadline should have been calendered as soon as the waivers were mailed out in

6

June 2017. The failure to calendar and the resulting failure to timely serve cannot be

7

excused by events that occurred in July.

8
9
10

Good cause has not been shown, and the Court finds that an extension of the
service deadline is not warranted. This action is hereby DISMISSED without prejudice
for failure to comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m).

11
12

Dated this 11th day of August, 2017.

13

A

14

Robert S. Lasnik
United States District Judge

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR EXTENSION
OF TIME AND DISMISSING CASE - 2