Sanchez v. Church's Chicken
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Cynthia Ann Bashant (author)
Analysis
The court considered Plaintiff's response to an Order to Show Cause regarding the failure to complete service within 90 days, citing counsel's medical emergency and a COVID-19 outbreak at the firm. The court granted an extension of the service period until January 21, 2021, finding that good cause existed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m).
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Granting extension of time to complete service“Thus, Plaintiff shall have until January 21, 2021, to complete service of the Summons and Complaint on Defendant.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the standard for extending the service period under Rule 4(m). The order recites that counsel suffered a medical emergency requiring hospitalization and that the firm had a positive case of COVID-19. These facts constitute 'good cause' or at least 'excusable neglect' as defined by Ninth Circuit precedent. The court's discretion to extend the time, including retroactively, is well-established. The specific deadline set is reasonable given the filing date. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally correct and cites the appropriate Ninth Circuit authorities for the standard of review (good cause/excusable neglect) and the court's discretion to extend time. The factual basis (medical emergency, pandemic) is clearly stated and supports the finding of good cause. The order is concise but sufficient for this type of procedural ruling.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 MARIA SANCHEZ, Case No. 20-cv-01720-BAS-JLB 11 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING EXTENSION 12 OF SERVICE PERIOD v. 13 CHURCH’S CHICKEN, et al., 14 Defendants. 15 16 The Court recently issued an Order to Show Cause why this action should not be 17 dismissed for failure to prosecute after Plaintiff attempted to amend her Complaint without 18 demonstrating that service was timely completed within 90 days. (ECF No. 5.) Before the 19 Court is Plaintiff’s response explaining that due to Plaintiff’s counsel’s medical emergency 20 requiring hospitalization and a positive case of COVID-19 at counsel’s firm, Plaintiff 21 requires additional time to complete service. (Resp., ECF No. 8; Decl. of Richard Alan 22 Smith ¶¶ 5–7, ECF No. 8-1.) 23 Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m), “if the plaintiff shows good cause for 24 the failure, the court must extend the time for service for an appropriate period.” “At a 25 minimum, ‘good cause’ means excusable neglect.” Boudette v. Barnette, 923 F.2d 754, 26 756 (9th Cir. 1991). Indeed, “district courts have broad discretion under General Rule 4(m) 27 to extend time for service even without a showing of good cause.” United States v. 2,164 28 Watches, More or Less Bearing a Registered Trademark of Guess?, Inc., 366 F.3d 767, 1 || 772 (th Cir. 2004) (citing In re Sheehan, 253 F.3d 507, 512 (9th Cir. 2001)). A district 2 |}court may also extend time for service retroactively after service period has expired. See 3 || Mann v. American Airlines, 324 F.3d 1088, 1090 (9th Cir. 2003). 4 Given the severity of counsel’s medical issues and mindful of the ongoing 5 ||complications posed by the COVID-19 pandemic, the Court finds that good cause exists 6 an extension. See Livesley v. City of Springfield, No. 6:18-CV-01023-AA, 2019 WL 7 |/310121, at *3 (D. Or. Jan. 22, 2019) (holding that severe medical conditions constitute 8 || good cause under Rule 4(m)). Thus, Plaintiff shall have until January 21, 2021, to 9 ||complete service of the Summons and Complaint on Defendant. Plaintiff must file a proof 10 || of service no later than January 22, 2021 showing that service was timely completed. No 11 || further extensions of time to complete service will be granted. 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. 13 A ul 14 || DATED: January 7, 2021 Cypilig _| Hishaa □ 15 United States District Judge 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28