Bouari v. United States of America

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: March 30, 2022
• Docket: 2:21-cv-01974
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 4 * * * 5 Emile Bouari, Case No. 2:21-cv-01974-RFB-DJA 6 Plaintiff, 7 Order v. 8 United States of America, et al., 9 Defendants. 10 11 12 After his deadline to serve Defendants passed, Plaintiff Emile Bouari moved to extend the 13 deadline for service. (ECF No. 10). After his complaint was filed on November 29, 2021, 14 Plaintiff had until February 27, 2022 to serve Defendants under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15 4(m). (ECF No. 8). Summonses were returned executed for Defendants Troy Eid, Kimberly 16 Frayn, Dennis Lao, Charles Ro, and Paul Padda on December 21, 2021. (ECF No. 9). On March 17 22, 2022, Plaintiff moved to extend the February 27, 2022 deadline to serve the remaining 18 Defendants. (ECF No. 10). No Defendants responded to the motion. 19 Plaintiff explains that he retained a process server to help with service but, “within a few 20 days of receiving the paperwork, the Process Server caught COVID and was bed ridden for 21 weeks. The Process Server is now back at work and is able to resume his process services.” (Id.). 22 Plaintiff requests six weeks from March 11, 2022 for Plaintiff to serve all Defendants. (Id.). 23 Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m), if a plaintiff shows good cause for the failure 24 to serve a defendant within ninety days after the complaint was filed, the court must extend the 25 time for service for an appropriate period. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). Under Local Rule IA 6-1, “[a] 26 request made after the expiration of the specified period will not be granted unless the movant or 27 attorney demonstrates that the failure to file a motion before the deadline expired was the result of 1 Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 & n.7 (9th Cir. 2010). Additionally, the failure of a party to file points 2 and authorities in response to any motion constitutes a consent to the granting of the motion. LR 3 7-2(d). 4 The Court grants Plaintiff’s request for an extension. However, it notes that Plaintiff’s 5 good cause is questionable and excusable neglect underdeveloped. Plaintiff does not provide the 6 dates on which his process server was bedridden or when the process server was able to return to 7 work. Nor does he explain why he did not use a different process server or move to extend the 8 deadline before it expired. Nonetheless, liberally construing Plaintiff’s motion, the Court finds 9 that he has only just met the good cause and excusable neglect standards. Additionally, none of 10 the served Defendants have opposed Plaintiff’s motion. 11 12 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion to extend the service deadline is 13 granted. Plaintiff shall have until Tuesday, May 10, 2022 to accomplish service on Defendants. 14 15 DATED: March 29, 2022 16 DANIEL J. ALBREGTS 17 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27