Cassiopeia IP LLC v. Synology America Corp

W.D. Washington

Cassiopeia IP LLC v. Synology America Corp

DecidedMarch 7, 2023

Docket2:22-cv-01521

StatusUnknown

This text of Cassiopeia IP LLC v. Synology America Corp (Cassiopeia IP LLC v. Synology America Corp) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. Washington primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Cassiopeia IP LLC v. Synology America Corp, (W.D. Wash. 2023).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3

4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 7 CASSIOPEIA IP LLC, CASE NO. 2:22-cv-01521-JHC 8

Plaintiff, ORDER 9 v. 10 SYNOLOGY AMERICA CORP., 11

Defendant. 12 13

14 Plaintiff filed this patent-infringement action on October 26, 2022. Dkt. # 1. Federal 15 Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) requires service of process within “90 days after the complaint is 16 filed.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). Accordingly, service was required by January 24, 2023. On 17 February 3, 2023, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause as to why the action should not be 18 dismissed for failure to comply with Rule 4(m). Dkt. # 6. Plaintiff responded on February 13, 19 2023. Dkt. # 8. According to Plaintiff’s counsel, the failure to timely serve Defendant was the 20 product of a “clerical error.” Id. at 2; see also id. (“[A]n entry had been made on my firm’s 21 internal records that the Complaint and summons was out for service.”).1 22 23

1 Plaintiff has apparently since effectuated service. Dkt. # 7. But that does not affect the analysis 24 here. l Rule 4(m) “requires a district court to grant an extension of time when the plaintiff shows 2 || good cause for the delay.” Efaw v. Williams, 473 F.3d 1038, 1040 (9th Cir. 2007) (emphasis 3 omitted). “Courts have discretion under Rule 4(m), absent a showing of good cause, to extend 4 || the time for service or to dismiss the action without prejudice.” In re Sheehan, 253 F.3d 507, 5 Oth Cir. 2001). 6 A clerical error or oversight by counsel does not constitute “good cause.” See, e.g., 7 || Rodriguez v. Pfeiffer, No. 121CV00572JLTEPGPC, 2022 WL 686454, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 8, 8 2022) (““Counsel’s mistake or oversight does not constitute good cause for an extension of time g ||under Rule 4.”); James v. Cnty. of Sacramento, No. 2:18-CV-00180-TLN-DB, 2022 WL 10 || 2533484, at *4 (E.D. Cal. July 7, 2022) (“[O]versight, inadvertence, or mistake does not rise to 11 the level of excusable neglect—much less good cause.”). And in the absence of good cause, the 12 Court declines to exercise its discretion to extend the time for service. 13 Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES this action without prejudice. 14 Dated this 7th day of March, 2023. 15 C]ok. 4. Chua

17 John H. Chun United States District Judge 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 2 3

4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 7 CASSIOPEIA IP LLC, CASE NO. 2:22-cv-01521-JHC 8

Plaintiff, ORDER 9 v. 10 SYNOLOGY AMERICA CORP., 11

Defendant. 12 13

14 Plaintiff filed this patent-infringement action on October 26, 2022. Dkt. # 1. Federal 15 Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) requires service of process within “90 days after the complaint is 16 filed.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). Accordingly, service was required by January 24, 2023. On 17 February 3, 2023, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause as to why the action should not be 18 dismissed for failure to comply with Rule 4(m). Dkt. # 6. Plaintiff responded on February 13, 19 2023. Dkt. # 8. According to Plaintiff’s counsel, the failure to timely serve Defendant was the 20 product of a “clerical error.” Id. at 2; see also id. (“[A]n entry had been made on my firm’s 21 internal records that the Complaint and summons was out for service.”).1 22 23

1 Plaintiff has apparently since effectuated service. Dkt. # 7. But that does not affect the analysis 24 here. l Rule 4(m) “requires a district court to grant an extension of time when the plaintiff shows 2 || good cause for the delay.” Efaw v. Williams, 473 F.3d 1038, 1040 (9th Cir. 2007) (emphasis 3 omitted). “Courts have discretion under Rule 4(m), absent a showing of good cause, to extend 4 || the time for service or to dismiss the action without prejudice.” In re Sheehan, 253 F.3d 507, 5 Oth Cir. 2001). 6 A clerical error or oversight by counsel does not constitute “good cause.” See, e.g., 7 || Rodriguez v. Pfeiffer, No. 121CV00572JLTEPGPC, 2022 WL 686454, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 8, 8 2022) (““Counsel’s mistake or oversight does not constitute good cause for an extension of time g ||under Rule 4.”); James v. Cnty. of Sacramento, No. 2:18-CV-00180-TLN-DB, 2022 WL 10 || 2533484, at *4 (E.D. Cal. July 7, 2022) (“[O]versight, inadvertence, or mistake does not rise to 11 the level of excusable neglect—much less good cause.”). And in the absence of good cause, the 12 Court declines to exercise its discretion to extend the time for service. 13 Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES this action without prejudice. 14 Dated this 7th day of March, 2023. 15 C]ok. 4. Chua

17 John H. Chun United States District Judge 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Cassiopeia IP LLC v. Synology America Corp, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cassiopeia-ip-llc-v-synology-america-corp-wawd-2023.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack