Opinion
MASTER FILE 02 Civ. 3288 (DLC).
January 12, 2006
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
On November 29, 2005, the plaintiffs in Addock et al. v. Ebbers et al., No. 05 Civ. 7432, were given an extension of almost two months to serve defendants, even though plaintiffs had not made a sufficient showing of diligence. On December 14, 2005, plaintiffs moved to extend time to serve the defendants by another 120 days. In support of this application, plaintiffs represent that they have contacted "what Plaintiffs believe to be the Defendants' state of incorporation and/or domicile" only to be advised that the defendants are not "incorporated" there. The plaintiffs list major financial institutions and individual former WorldCom directors in making that representation. They do not explain what steps they have taken to find the state of incorporation of the major financial institutions or why they believe individuals would be "incorporated." They assert only and without elaboration that they have conducted "extensive research" into variations of the defendants' names. The defendants have opposed this motion.
Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides in pertinent part that if service has not been made within 120 days of the filing of the complaint, the court shall dismiss the action without prejudice as to that defendant, "provided that if the plaintiff shows good cause for the failure, the court shall extend the time for service for an appropriate period." Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(m). Good cause is "evidenced only in exceptional circumstances where the insufficiency of service results from circumstances beyond the plaintiff's control."Feingold v. Hankin, 269 F.Supp. 2d 268, 276 (S.D.N.Y. 2003). Insufficiency of service due to an "attorney's ignorance of the rules, inadvertence, neglect, or mistake do not constitute good cause." Id. The plaintiffs bear the burden of showing good cause. AIG Managed Market Neutral Fund v. Askin Capital Management, L.P., 197 F.R.D. 104, 108 (S.D.N.Y. 2000).
The plaintiffs have not shown sufficient diligence to warrant the second extension. Each of these defendants have been successfully served in scores of WorldCom actions pending before this Court. The true corporate names and true individual names are well known. The plaintiffs provide no detail whatsoever as to what steps they have taken to effect service or when they began those steps.
Conclusion
The motion for an extension of the time to effect service beyond December 16, 2005 is denied.
SO ORDERED.