Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JANE DOE (C.M.S.), an individual, Case No.: 24-CV-217 JLS (AHG)

12 Plaintiff, ORDER (1) VACATING HEARING 13 v. AND (2) GRANTING MOTIONS TO EXTEND 14 WYNDHAM HOTELS & RESORTS, INC., et al., 15 (ECF Nos. 39, 58) Defendants. 16 17 Presently before the Court are Plaintiff Jane Doe’s Motion to Extend Time to Serve 18 Defendants (“Pl.’s Mot.,” ECF No. 39)—which is noticed for a hearing on July 25, 20241— 19 and her supporting Memorandum (“Pl.’s Mem.,” ECF No. 39-1). Defendants Wyndham 20 Hotels & Resorts, Inc.; Wyndham Hotel Group, LLC; Ramada Worldwide Inc.; Super 8 21 Worldwide, Inc.; La Quinta Franchising, LLC; and La Quinta Holdings, Inc. filed a 22 Statement of Non-Opposition (“Statement of Non-Opp’n,” ECF No. 52). Also before the 23 Court is the Joint Motion to Extend Time to File Response (“Joint Mot.,” ECF No. 58) 24 filed by Plaintiff and Defendants Pacific Coast Inn, LLC and Pacific Coast, LLC Co. 25 (collectively, the “Pacific Coast Defendants”). The Court will address both matters in turn. 26 27 28 1 The Court finds Plaintiff’s Motion appropriate for decision without oral argument and therefore 1 PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 2 Plaintiff initiated this action by filing her initial Complaint (“Compl.,” ECF No. 1) 3 on January 31, 2024. A summons and an amended summons were issued the following 4 day. See ECF Nos. 1 to 2. On March 29, Plaintiff filed her First Amended Complaint 5 (“FAC,” ECF No. 4), which identified seventeen new defendants. Pl.’s Mem. ¶ 3. In her 6 Memorandum, Plaintiff explains that—despite several attempts—she had trouble securing 7 an amended summons to allow her to serve these new defendants. See id. ¶¶ 4–6. 8 Eventually, on June 21, Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint (“SAC,” ECF 9 No. 29), which named still more defendants. A new summons was then issued on June 24. 10 See ECF No. 30. 11 In her present Motion, Plaintiff requests an extension of “[thirty] days to serve 12 Defendants” pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m). Pl.’s Mem. ¶ 12. 13 Rule 4(m) sets an “irreducible allowance” of ninety days for a plaintiff to complete service 14 after the complaint is filed. Henderson v. United States, 517 U.S. 654, 661 (1996); 15 Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). If a plaintiff fails to timely effect service, Rule 4(m) (1) “requires a 16 district court to grant an extension . . . when the plaintiff shows good cause” for the delay 17 and (2) “permits the district court to grant an extension even in the absence of good cause.” 18 Efaw v. Williams, 473 F.3d 1038, 1040 (9th Cir. 2007) (emphases omitted). When 19 exercising its discretion to grant or deny an extension, a court “may consider factors ‘like 20 a statute of limitations bar, prejudice to the defendant, actual notice of a lawsuit, and 21 eventual service.’” Id. at 1041 (quoting Troxell v. Fedders of N. Am., Inc., 160 F.3d 381, 22 383 (7th Cir. 1998)). 23 Plaintiff does not clarify which defendants the Motion pertains to, whether it be only 24 defendants listed in the original complaint, those named for the first time in the FAC, or 25 both groups.2 Plaintiff justifies her request by noting she “was not issued an Amended 26 27 2 No extension is needed as to defendants named for the first time in the SAC; as explained in the next 28 paragraph, the ninety-day clock relevant to them did not begin ticking until the SAC was filed on 1 Summons that listed new Defendants following her filing of the [FAC].” Pl.’s Mem. ¶¶ 11. 2 However, she also explains that “immediately” after receiving the new summons, she 3 “scheduled service of process on all Defendants.” Id. ¶ 9 (emphasis added). 4 The exact group of Defendants targeted matters because Rule 4(m)’s ninety-day 5 window “is not restarted by the filing of an amended complaint except as to those 6 defendants newly added in the amended complaint.” Thor v. Crawford, No. 8:23-CV- 7 00940-AB-AJR, 2023 WL 6927339, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 1, 2023) (quoting Bolden v. City 8 of Topeka, 441 F.3d 1129, 1148 (10th Cir. 2006)). So, to the extent Plaintiff seeks more 9 time to serve Defendants named in the original Complaint (filed on January 31), a thirty- 10 day extension would not cut it. By contrast, thirty days would suffice as to any defendants 11 brought into this action by the FAC (filed on March 29) that have yet to be served. 12 Having reviewed the relevant submissions and the record, the Court will (1) construe 13 Plaintiff’s request to apply both to Defendants named in the original Complaint and added 14 by the FAC and (2) GRANT Plaintiff’s Motion.3 Though a longer extension is required 15 to serve Defendants named at the outset of this case, most of said Defendants signed on to 16 the Statement of Non-Opposition. Plus, a flurry of litigation activity took place after the 17 FAC—but before the SAC—was filed, indicating several “long-standing” Defendants 18 received notice of this action. See Docket. Finally, the Court notes Plaintiff has exhibited 19 diligence in attempting and executing service,4 and that nothing in the record suggests that 20 granting Plaintiff this extension will prejudice any Defendant. 21 JOINT MOTION 22 The Joint Motion asks the Court to extend the Pacific Coast Defendants’ deadline to 23 respond to the SAC to August 19, 2024. See Joint Mot. at 3–4. The Pacific Coast 24 Defendants were first named in the FAC. See generally FAC. However, they were never 25 26 3 Plaintiff is advised, however, against submitting similarly vague requests going forward. 27 28 4 Beyond the steps taken discussed above, Plaintiff filed proofs of service regarding twenty-one defendants 1 ||served with that pleading; instead, Plaintiff served the Pacific Coast Defendants with the 2 ||SAC on June 24. See Joint Mot. at 3-4. Per the Joint Motion, the Pacific Coast Defendants 3 ||require additional time to respond to the SAC because they must secure counsel and 4 || investigate Plaintiff's allegations. 5 Good cause appearing, the Court GRANTS the Joint Motion. 6 CONCLUSION 7 For the reasons above, the Court ORDERS as follows. 8 1) The Court VACATES the July 25, 2024, hearing and GRANTS □□□□□□□□□□□ 9 ||Motion (ECF No. 39). Plaintiff SHALL SERVE Defendants named in the original 10 ||Complaint and Defendants first named in the FAC within thirty (30) days of the date of 11 || this Order.° 12 2) The Court GRANTS the Joint Motion (ECF No. 58). Defendants Pacific 13 Coast Inn, LLC and Pacific Coast Inn, LLC Co. SHALL RESPOND to the SAC on or 14 || before August 19, 2024. 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. 16 ||Dated: July 19, 2024 jae L. Lo memeaite- 17 on. Janis L. Sammartino ig United States District Judge 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 2T YO 28 Nene in this Order impacts Plaintiff's deadline to serve any Defendants named for the first time in the