Weldental LLC v. Hello Products, LLC
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Cynthia Ann Bashant (author)
Analysis
The court considered a joint motion to extend the deadline for Defendant Hello Products to respond to the complaint and an ex parte motion to extend the deadline for Plaintiff Weldental to serve remaining defendants. The court granted both motions, extending the response deadline to November 29, 2021, and granting a 60-day extension for service.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Grant of joint motion to extend time for Defendant Hello Products, LLC to respond to the Complaint.“Good cause appearing, the Court GRANTS the motion.” | agree with court The parties represented that additional time was necessary for settlement discussions, which is a recognized basis for good cause in extending response deadlines. The court's decision to grant the extension based on this representation is consistent with standard civil procedure practices. |
Grant of ex parte motion to extend time for Plaintiff Weldental LLC to perfect service on remaining Defendants.“Despite the absence of good cause shown, the Court exercises its discretion and GRANTS the ex parte application for the extension.” | agree with court The court correctly identified that the plaintiff failed to show good cause under Rule 4(m) because it did not explain service efforts or the impact of settlement on other defendants. However, the court correctly noted it has discretion to extend time even without good cause, citing Lemoge v. U.S. The exercise of this discretion to grant the extension is within the court's authority. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly applies Rule 4(m) and the Ninth Circuit precedent from Lemoge v. U.S. It accurately distinguishes between the mandatory extension for good cause and the discretionary extension without good cause. The reasoning is concise but legally sufficient for a procedural scheduling order.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 WELDENTAL LLC, Case No. 21-cv-01217-BAS-KSC 12 Plaintiff, ORDER 13 v. (1) EXTENDING TIME FOR 14 HELLO PRODUCTS, LLC, et al., DEFENDANT HELLO PRODUCTS, 15 Defendant. LLC TO RESPOND TO THE COMPLAINT BY 60 DAYS, AND 16 17 (2) EXTENDING PLAINTIFF’S DEADLINE TO SERVE OTHER 18 DEFENDANTS BY 60 DAYS 19 (ECF No. 6) 20 21 22 23 24 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff Weldental LLC and Defendant Hello Products 25 LLC’s joint motion to extend time for Hello Products to respond to the Complaint, and 26 Weldental’s ex parte motion to extend time to perfect service on the remaining Defendants. 27 (ECF No. 6.) For the reasons stated below, the Court GRANTS the joint motion and the 28 ex parte application. 1 I. HELLO PRODUCTS’ DEADLINE TO RESPOND 2 Weldental and Hello Products seek to extend time for Hello Products to respond to 3 the Complaint until November 29, 2021. The two parties represent that additional time is 4 necessary to facilitate ongoing settlement discussions. Good cause appearing, the Court 5 GRANTS the motion. (ECF No. 6.) 6 7 II. WELDENTAL’S DEADLINE TO PERFECT SERVICE 8 In the same motion, Weldental also applies, ex parte,1 for an order extending time 9 for an additional 60 days to serve the Summons and Complaint upon the remaining 10 Defendants: Ulta Beauty, Inc.; Sprouts Farmer’s Market, Inc.; CVS Health Corporation; 11 Rite Aid Corporation; Target Corporation; and The Kroger Co. (together, “Retail 12 Defendants”). Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m), service upon defendants must 13 be made within 90 days after the complaint is filed. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). “[I]f the plaintiff 14 shows good cause for the failure, the court must extend the time for service for an 15 appropriate period.” Id. A court also has discretion to extend the time for service in the 16 absence of good cause. Lemoge v. U.S., 587 F.3d 1188, 1198 (9th Cir. 2009). Here, 17 Weldental does not explain what efforts it has made to serve the Retail Defendants nor how 18 the settlement discussion between it and Hello Products will affect the claims against the 19 Retail Defendants. Thus, Weldental has not shown good cause to extend the time for 20 service. Despite the absence of good cause shown, the Court exercises its discretion and 21 GRANTS the ex parte application for the extension. (ECF No. 6.) 22 // 23 // 24 // 25 26 1 While the request is filed as a joint motion by Weldental and Hello Products, the two parties have 27 not shown that Hello Products has the authority to consent to the extension on behalf of other Defendants. Thus, the Court construes the motion for extension of time to perfect service as an ex parte application by 28 1 CONCLUSION 2 For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Weldental and Hello Products’ joint 3 ||motion and Weldental’s ex parte application. (ECF No. 6.) On or before November 29, 4 ||2021, Hello Products shall respond to the Complaint, and Weldental shall perfect service 5 the Retail Defendants. 6 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 8 A , 9 || DATED: September 27, 2021 Lin A (Lyohaa. 6 10 United States District Judge 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Cites, in this corpus
- Lemoge v. United States 08-56210 · 2009-12-07