Markel American Insurance Company v. Stark

Filing 20

ORDER denying Plaintiff's 13 Motion to Extend Time Limit for Service signed by Judge Ricardo S Martinez. (PM)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

8
9
10
11

MARKEL AMERICAN INSURANCE
COMPANY, a foreign insurer,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14
15
16

v.

Case No. C17-1345 RSM
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO EXTEND DEADLINE FOR
SERVICE

GREG STARK, an individual,
Defendant.

17

This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Markel American Insurance Company’s

18

Motion to Extend Time Limit for Service. Dkt. #13. Defendant Greg Stark has failed to

19

oppose this Motion, although he has made an appearance, see Dkt. #5.

20

Plaintiff requests to extend the service deadline to October 31, 2017, citing Rule 4(m).

21
22

Plaintiff’s reason for this request “is to allow the parties additional time to address preliminary

23

issues related to admiralty jurisdiction of this and a removed, related case to be consolidated

24

with this one and then remanded in whole, in part, or not at all.” Dkt. #13 at 1. Plaintiff also

25

requests a stay of the case deadlines, including the Joint Status Report deadline. Id. Plaintiff

26
27
28

attaches a declaration of counsel mentioning a related case, recently removed from state court,
and that Plaintiff is opposing Defendant Stark’s recently filed Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. #7) with

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO EXTEND DEADLINE FOR SERVICE - 1

1

a “cross-motion for a declaration confirming federal jurisdiction, or alternatively to sever the

2

additional defendant from the removed case, which should still result in jurisdiction…” Id. at

3

2. The declaration also states that counsel has failed to issue a request for a waiver of service

4

“[d]ue to these machinations…” Id. at 2–3.

5
6
7

Rule 4(m) states that service must be made within 90 days after the complaint is filed,
but “if the plaintiff shows good cause for the failure [to serve], the court must extend the time

8

for service for an appropriate period.” Fed R. Civ. P. 4(m). A plaintiff may request a waiver of

9

service from a defendant, but must “give the defendant a reasonable time of at least 30 days

10
11
12

after the request was sent… to return the waiver.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(d)(1)(F).
The Complaint was filed in this case on September 7, 2017. Mr. Stark must therefore

13

be served by December 6, 2017. By the Court’s calculation, if Plaintiff requests a waiver of

14

service and provides 30 days for its return, Plaintiff must send that request no later than the first

15

week of November to provide Mr. Stark enough time to sign and return the waiver, or fail to do

16

so, and for Plaintiff to then serve Mr. Stark. Given all of this, it is unclear why Plaintiff would

17
18

request an extension of time at this point. These dates are not addressed in the Motion.

19

Furthermore, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s evidence and argument fail to satisfy the

20

good cause requirement of Rule 4(m). Mr. Stark has already made an appearance in this matter

21

and filed a Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff has now filed two Motions ostensibly demanding the

22
23
24
25
26
27

participation of Mr. Stark, both noted prior to October 31, 2017. For Plaintiff to forego serving
Defendant while so demanding his participation in this litigation is nonsensical.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion (Dkt. #13) is
DENIED.
//

28

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO EXTEND DEADLINE FOR SERVICE - 2

1
2
3
4

DATED this 13th day of October 2017.

A

RICARDO S. MARTINEZ
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO EXTEND DEADLINE FOR SERVICE - 3