Flores v. Doe Agent 1
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- James E. Simmons (author)
Analysis
The court considered a motion to file a Second Amended Complaint (SAC) and a response to an Order to Show Cause regarding the failure to serve a defendant within the time limits of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m). The court granted the motion to file the SAC, extended the time for service, and dissolved the Order to Show Cause.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Motion to file Second Amended Complaint (SAC) granted“As such, Plaintiff’s motion to file the SAC is GRANTED.” | agree with court The court granted the motion to amend because the plaintiff identified the specific individual (Marco Andrade) to replace the Doe defendant, and the United States (a party to the action) did not oppose the motion. This is a standard procedural ruling allowing the correction of a party's identity. |
Extension of time for service under Rule 4(m)“However, the Court will extend the 90-day time limit of Rule 4(m) as Plaintiff has shown good cause for the delay in service for Doe Agent 1.” | agree with court The court applied the 'good cause' standard required by Rule 4(m) to extend the deadline. It found good cause based on the plaintiff's efforts to identify the Doe defendant and the filing of the SAC to name the specific individual. This is a discretionary determination supported by the facts recited in the order. |
Order to Show Cause dissolved“Further, the Court now DISSOLVES the OSC.” | agree with court The OSC was issued to determine if the case should be dismissed for failure to serve. Because the court granted the extension of time for service and allowed the amendment to name the defendant, the basis for the OSC (potential dismissal for failure to serve) is resolved by granting the relief requested in the response/motion. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly identifies that the filing of an amended complaint does not reset the Rule 4(m) clock for previously named defendants, citing binding Ninth Circuit authority (McGuckin) and persuasive district court cases. It then correctly applies the 'good cause' exception to Rule 4(m) to extend the deadline, finding that the plaintiff's efforts to identify the Doe defendant and the non-opposition of the United States constitute good cause. The reasoning is direct and supported by the cited authorities.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ANTHONY FLORES, Case No.: 3:24-cv-01189-JES-MSB 12 Plaintiff, ORDER: 13 v. (1) DISSOLVING ORDER TO SHOW 14 DOE AGENT 1, et al., CAUSE; and 15 Defendants. (2) GRANTING MOTION TO 16 AMEND/CORRECT THE 17 COMPLAINT 18 [ECF No. 13] 19 20 On November 6, 2024, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause (“OSC”) why the 21 case should not be dismissed for failure to serve Defendant, Doe Agent 1. ECF No. 4. 22 Plaintiff was ordered to file a written response on or before November 22, 2024. Id. On 23 November 22, 2024, Plaintiff filed a response to the Court’s OSC detailing reasons for the 24 delay and informing the Court that initially Plaintiff could not identify Doe Agent 1 and 25 filed an amended complaint (“FAC”) naming the United States as a defendant and has 26 completed service on the United States. ECF No. at 11. Further, Plaintiff argues that the 27 filing of the amended complaint restarts the time period for service under Federal Rules of 28 1 Civil Procedure 4. Id. In the alternative, Plaintiff argues that he has shown good cause to 2 extend the time for effectuating service upon Doe Agent 1. 3 The filing of an amended complaint does not reset the 90-day service deadlines for 4 those defendants previously named in the original complaint. Otherwise, a plaintiff could 5 repeatedly file amended complaints to extend the time for service indefinitely. Mitchell v. 6 County of Nye, No. 2:15-cv-01714-APG-NJK, 2016 WL 6782740, at *2 (D. Nev. Nov. 14, 7 2016); See also McGuckin v. United States, 918 F.2d 811, 813 (9th Cir. 1990). In McGurkin, 8 the Ninth Circuit allowed service within 120 days of filing of the complaint, but only 9 because the plaintiff added the United States as a new defendant in the amended complaint. 10 Id. Here, Doe Agent 1 was named in the original complaint. ECF No. 1. Filing the FAC 11 does not restart the service period for Doe Agent 1. See, e.g. Lycurgan, Inc. v. Griffith, No. 12 14-CV-548 JLS (KSC), 2017 WL 4680143, at *3 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 18, 2017); Thai v. United 13 States, No. 15-CV-583-WQH (NLS), 2016 WL 1585135, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 15, 2016); 14 Torres v. Colvin, No. CV-13-2300-PHX-LOA, 2014 WL 2683296, at *1 (D. Ariz. June 13, 15 2014). 16 However, the Court will extend the 90-day time limit of Rule 4(m) as Plaintiff has 17 shown good cause for the delay in service for Doe Agent 1. Plaintiff has made numerous 18 efforts to identify Doe Agent 1 and has filed a motion to file a Second Amended Complaint 19 (“SAC”) to add Marco Andrade in place of Doe Agent 1. ECF No. 13. The United States 20 does not oppose Plaintiff’s motion to file the SAC. As such, Plaintiff’s motion to file the 21 SAC is GRANTED. Plaintiff shall promptly file the proposed SAC and a new summons 22 shall issue forthwith for Plaintiff to execute service no later than February 5, 2025. 23 Further, the Court now DISSOLVES the OSC. 24 / / / 25 / / / 26 / / / 27 / / / 28 / / / I IT IS SO ORDERED. 2 Dated: January 13, 2025 3 4 we Su 4 4 Honorable James E. Simmons Jr. 5 United States District Judge 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28