Opinion
1:21-cv-01103-NONE-SAB
11-29-2021
JANE DOE, Plaintiff, v. DERRAL ADAMS, et al., Defendants.
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO COMPLETE SERVICE ON DEFENDANTS
ORDER CONTINUING SCHEDULING CONFERENCE TO FEBRUARY 8, 2022 AT 10:00 A.M.
THIRTY DAY DEADLINE
This action was filed on July 20, 2021. (ECF No. 1.) Summonses were issued on the same date. (ECF Nos. 3, 4.) The only summons returned executed thus far pertains to Defendant Timothy Beach. (ECF No. 8.) On August 19, 2021, the Court extended the time for Timothy Beach to file a responsive pleading until October 14, 2021. (ECF No. 9.) On October 13, 2021, the Court granted a stipulated request to continue the scheduling conference until December 7, 2021. (ECF No. 11.) In the October 13, 2021 order, the Court reminded Plaintiff that the deadline to complete service under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) was nearly expired. On October 15, 2021, the Court granted Defendant Timothy Beach's unopposed motion to extend the time to file a responsive pleading until November 11, 2021, and again reminded Plaintiff of the approaching deadline under Rule 4(m). (ECF No. 13.) The deadline for Defendant Timothy Beach to file a responsive pleading expired and no stipulation to extend the time was filed and no request for entry of default was filed. Additionally, no executed summonses have been filed demonstrating service as to the remaining Defendants in this action, and the deadline to do so expired, Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(m). Thus, on November 19, 2021, the Court ordered Plaintiff to file a status report within five (5) days of entry addressing service and readiness for the scheduling conference currently set for December 7, 2021. (ECF No. 18.)
On November 22, 2021, Defendant Timothy Beach filed an answer. (ECF No. 19.) On November 29, 2021, Plaintiff belatedly filed a status report responsive to the November 19, 2021 order. (ECF No. 20.) Plaintiff informs the Court that Defendant Beach has now answered, and that Plaintiff still has not been able to locate the other Defendants in this action “despite diligent efforts.” (Id.) Plaintiff requests an additional thirty (30) days to attempt service.
Plaintiff is admonished for not filing the status report within the five (5) days allotted. Further, the Court notes Plaintiff's request for a thirty (30) day extension does not provide a specific articulated basis for the inability to have located the other Defendants in this action nor does it describe the diligent efforts that have been unsuccessful thus far. Nonetheless, the Court shall allow an additional thirty (30) days for Plaintiff to complete service on the remaining named Defendants. Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(m) (“[I]f the plaintiff shows good cause for the failure, the court must extend the time for service for an appropriate period.”). The Court shall also continue the scheduling conference to allow for service and the filing of a responsive pleading.
If Plaintiff does not complete service within thirty (30) days, the Court shall recommend dismissal of the unserved Defendants. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(m) (“If a defendant is not served within 90 days after the complaint is filed, the court-on motion or on its own after notice to the plaintiff-must dismiss the action without prejudice against that defendant or order that service be made within a specified time.”). The Court will not grant any further extension of time absent demonstrable good cause based on a specific description of the previous attempts to locate the unserved Defendants, and a description of the efforts expended following entry of this order.
Accordingly, finding good cause, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff's request for an extension of time to complete service is GRANTED;
2. Plaintiff shall complete and file proofs of service for Defendants Derral Adams, Janel Espinoza, and Deborah K. Johnson, within thirty (30) days of entry of this order;
3. The scheduling conference set for December 7, 2021, is CONTINUED to February 8, 2022, at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom 9;
4. The parties shall file a joint scheduling report seven (7) days prior to the scheduling conference; and
5. The parties shall address the need for a motion to file pseudonymous pleadings in the scheduling report.
Plaintiff did not file a motion to file pseudonymous pleadings in this action. The parties should be prepared to address this issue, and be prepared to set a filing date and briefing schedule for such motion, if opposed, or file an unopposed motion that satisfies the applicable legal standards. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 10(a); Doe v. Kamehameha Schools (“Kamehameha Schools”), 596 F.3d 1036, 1042 (9th Cir. 2010); Does I thru XXIII v. Advanced Textile Corp. (“Advanced Textile Corp.”), 214 F.3d 1058, 1067 (9th Cir. 2000).
IT IS SO ORDERED.