Dew v. City of Seaside

Opinion

, ||Jeremy L Lessem, Esq (SBN 213406) Jamal L. Tooson, Esq (SBN 261373) 2 ||Lessem, Newstat & Tooson, LLP 3 ||3450 Cahuenga Blvd W. Ste. 102 Los Angeles, CA 90068 + || Phone 818-582-3087 | Fax 818-484-3087 5 ||Jeremy@LnLegal.com ‘ JTooson@LnLegal.com 7 || Attorney for Plaintiffs 8 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ll 12 |} LORI DEW, G.V., a minor, by and Case No.: 4:19-CV-06009 HSG through his guardian ad litem, MARYANNE GOULD, W.V., a minor, 4 1B V., a minor, L.V., a minor, T.C., a ORDER TO EXTEND 15 |}minor, by and through their guardian ad PURSUANT TO beep tay 16 || litem, MARILYN CORPUS, in each case (m) both individually and as successors-in- 'T |! interest to the ESTATE OF BRANDON 18 || VIRTUE, Deceased, 19 Plaintiffs, 20 21 VS. ** CITY OF SEASIDE, CHIEF ABDUL 23 || PRIDGEN, MANUEL FERNANDEZ 54 ||and DOES 1 THROUGH 100, INCLUSIVE, 25 Defendants 27 28 ORDER TO EXTEND TIME FOR SERVICE PURSUANT TO FRCP 4(M)

ORDER TO EXTEND TIME LIMIT FOR SERVICE 2 3 PURSUANT TO FRCP 4(m): 4 Plaintiff filed an ex parte application for an order extending time for an additional 90 days to serve the summons and complaint upon Defendant Manuel

7 ||Fernandez. Good cause appearing, the court GRANTS an extension of time to * ll serve the summons and complaint on Defendant until March 25, 2019. 9 10 I. Background Plaintiffs filed the instant action on September 24, 2019. The matter was assigned to this above entitled court on December 11, 2019. The summons was

14 |}issued on December 13, 2019. On December 19, Plaintiffs made diligent efforts to ll serve Defendant Fernandez at his last known work address at the Seaside Police l Department. The Seaside Police Department declined to provide a forwarding 18 |) address. 19 II. Analysis 21 Plaintiffs are normally allotted 90 days to serve defendants after a complaint Ilis filed. Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 4(m). However, if a Plaintiff shows good cause for 2 failure to serve within the 90-day period, the court is required to extend time for 25 service. Jd. Under the same rule, the court has broad discretion to extend time for service in absence of good cause. Efaw v. Williams, 473 F.3d 1038, 1041 (9th Cir.

28 ||2003). ORDER TO EXTEND TIME FOR SERVICE PURSUANT TO FRCP 4(M)

On December 19, Plaintiffs made diligent efforts to serve Defendant 2 || Fernandez at his last known work address. Plaintiffs were not informed that Defendant Fernandez was no longer working as an officer at the Seaside Police

5 Department prior to service, and the Seaside Police Department declined to ° provide a forwarding address. Plaintiff contends that Officer Fernandez’ address will be provided in initial disclosures, interrogatories, or informal discovery within 9 || answers to interrogatories. Plaintiffs further contend that independent investigation will be unsuccessful due to common spelling of Officer Fernandez’ name.

12 Under these circumstances, Plaintiffs have demonstrated good cause to ll extend time for service. The court will allow an extension to effect service. III. Conclusion 16 For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs’ motion to extend time for service of th summons and complaint is GRANTED. Plaintiffs may serve Defendant Fernandez

19 the summons and complaint and file proof of service with the court no later °° than March 25, 2020. IT ISSO ORDERED 23 54 || DATED: 12/20/2019 25 26 Hon. Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. United States District Judge 28 ORDER TO EXTEND TIME FOR SERVICE PURSUANT TO FRCP 4(M)