United States v. Estate of Tom L. Meyer
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Robert Steven Huie (author)
Analysis
The United States and the defendants jointly moved to extend the deadline to serve the First Amended Complaint on the estate's personal representative and to respond to the complaint. The court granted the motion, extending both deadlines to December 1, 2022, and ordered dismissal without prejudice if service is not completed by that date.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Joint Motion to Extend Time to Respond to Complaint and Effectuate Service granted“Because the Parties demonstrate good cause, the Court GRANTS the Parties’ Joint Motion to Extend Time, ECF No. 14.” | agree with court The court applied the correct two-step framework for Rule 4(m) extensions, finding that the parties demonstrated 'good cause' (defined as excusable neglect) which mandates an extension. The specific facts constituting good cause are not detailed in the order, but the legal standard applied is correct for the Ninth Circuit. |
Deadline for service of First Amended Complaint on Estate's personal representative extended to December 1, 2022“The deadline for Plaintiff to serve the First Amended Complaint on the yet-to-be appointed personal representative of the Estate of Tom L. Meyer is extended until December 1, 2022;” | agree with court This is a procedural order consistent with the grant of the motion. The extension is reasonable given the need to wait for the appointment of a personal representative. |
Deadline for Defendants to respond to First Amended Complaint extended to December 1, 2022“The deadline for Defendants Cynthia L. Meyer, Bradley A. Meyer, and Chad H. Meyer to respond to the First Amended Complaint is extended until December 1, 2022;” | agree with court This is a procedural order consistent with the grant of the motion. Extending the response deadline aligns with the service deadline. |
Order to dismiss First Amended Complaint without prejudice if service not completed by December 1, 2022“If Plaintiff has not served the yet-to-be appointed personal representative of the Estate of Tom L. Meyer by December 1, 2022, the Court will dismiss the First Amended Complaint without prejudice, absent further order from the Court.” | agree with court This is a standard condition attached to a Rule 4(m) extension. It preserves the court's authority to enforce the deadline and is procedurally appropriate. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly identifies the applicable legal standard for extending the time for service under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m). It cites the controlling Ninth Circuit precedent (In re Sheehan) and correctly applies the two-step test. The court finds that 'good cause' has been demonstrated, which legally mandates an extension. The specific facts supporting 'good cause' are not elaborated, but the legal conclusion follows from the parties' joint motion and the cited standard. The procedural orders (deadlines and dismissal condition) are standard and appropriate.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 United States of America, Case No.: 3:22-cv-00727-RSH-AGS 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING JOINT 13 v. MOTION TO EXTEND TIME TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT AND 14 ESTATE OF TOM L. MEYER, aka EFFECTUATE SERVICE “Tommy Meyer,” by and through his 15 personal representative and/or successors- [ECF No. 14] 16 in-interest; et al., 17 Defendants. 18 19 Plaintiff United States of America and Defendants Cynthia L. Meyer, Bradley A. 20 Meyer, and Chad H. Meyer jointly move for an extension of time to respond to the First 21 Amended Complaint and serve process on the yet-to-be appointed personal representative 22 of the Estate of Tom L. Meyer. ECF No. 14. 23 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) requires a plaintiff to serve a defendant “within 24 90 days after the complaint is filed.” Courts use a two-step analysis to decide whether to 25 extend the prescribed time for service of a complaint. In re Sheehan, 253 F.3d at 512 (citing 26 Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m); Petrucelli v. Bohringer & Ratzinger, GMBH, 46 F.3d 1298, 1305 (3d 27 Cir. 1995)). First, if the plaintiff shows good cause, a court must extend the time for service. 28 In re Sheehan, 253 F.3d at 512-13; see Boudette v. Barnette, 923 F.2d 754, 756 (9th Cir. 1 || 1991) (‘At a minimum, ‘good cause’ means excusable neglect.”). Second, if there is no 2 || good cause, a court has broad discretion to extend the time for service or dismiss the case 3 || without prejudice. Jn re Sheehan, 253 F.3d at 512-13. 4 Because the Parties demonstrate good cause, the Court GRANTS the Parties’ Joint 5 || Motion to Extend Time, ECF No. 14. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS: 6 1. The deadline for Plaintiff to serve the First Amended Complaint on the yet- 7 ||to-be appointed personal representative of the Estate of Tom L. Meyer is extended until 8 || December 1, 2022; 9 2. The deadline for Defendants Cynthia L. Meyer, Bradley A. Meyer, and Chad 10 ||H. Meyer to respond to the First Amended Complaint is extended until December 1, 2022; 11 12 3. If Plaintiff has not served the yet-to-be appointed personal representative of 13 || the Estate of Tom L. Meyer by December 1, 2022, the Court will dismiss the First Amended 14 || Complaint without prejudice, absent further order from the Court. 15 SO ORDERED. 16 || Dated: August 26, 2022 feeb vr § Howe 7 Hon. Robert S. Huie United States District Judge 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28