Opinion
1:21-cv-01208-EPG (PC)
09-21-2021
ROBERT J. MILLER, Plaintiff, v. STUART SHERMAN, et al., Defendants.
ORDER CLARIFYING DEADLINE TO FILE RESPONSE TO COMPLAINT (ECF NO. 13)
On August 18, 2021, the Court found service of the complaint appropriate and directed service on defendants Stuart Sherman and D. Lopez. (ECF No. 10). Pursuant to that order, the service order, summonses, and the operative complaint were served via email on the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”). (Id.). On August 20, 2021, the CDCR filed a Notice of E-Service Waiver indicating that all Defendants intended to waive service. (ECF No. 12). The California Attorney General's Office timely filed a waiver of service of process for all defendants on September 17, 2021. (ECF No. 13).
Pursuant to the Court's E-Service Order, “[a] defendant who timely waives service need not serve an answer to the complaint until 60 days after the waiver of service of process was sent….” (ECF No. 10, p. 2). The E-Service Order further states that, “[f]or any defendant that the CDCR advises will be waiving service, the date the CDCR files its Notice of E-Service Waiver will be considered the date the request for waiver was sent.” (Id.).
Defendants' waiver of service incorrectly reflects that Defendants' answer or motion under Rule 12 is due within 60 days after September 17, 2021, which is the date the waiver was filed. (ECF No. 13).
There is no indication that the waiver request was sent outside the United States.
By the instant order, the Court clarifies that, pursuant to the August 18, 2021 E-Service Order, Defendants' answer or other responsive pleading is due within 60 days after August 20, 2021, which is the date the CDCR's Notice of E-Service Waiver was filed. Should Defendants require additional time to respond to the complaint, they may file a motion for an extension of time setting forth good cause in support of the motion.
IT IS SO ORDERED.