Elkshoulder v. National Consumer Telecom & Utilities Exchange, Inc.

D. Nevada

Elkshoulder v. National Consumer Telecom & Utilities Exchange, Inc.

DecidedMarch 26, 2025

Docket2:24-cv-02281

StatusUnknown

This text of Elkshoulder v. National Consumer Telecom & Utilities Exchange, Inc. (Elkshoulder v. National Consumer Telecom & Utilities Exchange, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Nevada primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Elkshoulder v. National Consumer Telecom & Utilities Exchange, Inc., (D. Nev. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3 * * *

4 COURAGE ELKSHOULDER, Case No. 2:24-cv-002281-EJY

5 Plaintiff, ORDER 6 v.

7 NATIONAL CONSUMER TELECOM & UTILITIES EXCHANGE, INC.; INNOVIS 8 DATA SOLUTIONS, INC. and CLARITY SERVICES, INC., 9 Defendants. 10 11 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Extend Time to Serve (ECF No. 9). Plaintiff 12 explains a calendaring error resulted in the failure to timely serve Defendants. 13 Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) “[i]f a defendant is not served within 90 days 14 after the complaint is filed, the court—on motion or on its own after notice to the plaintiff—must 15 dismiss the action without prejudice against that defendant or order that service be made within a 16 specified time. But if the plaintiff shows good cause for the failure, the court must extend the time 17 for service for an appropriate period.” Recent Ninth Circuit case law holds a calendaring error, 18 whether the result of carelessness, negligence or falling within the meaning of excusable neglect is 19 sufficient to warrant an extension under the circumstances explained here. Pincay v. Andrews, 389 20 F.3d 853, 858-60 (9th Cir. 2004) (en banc) (affirming the district court’s finding of excusable neglect 21 within the meaning of Appellate Rule 4(a)(5) when the defendants filed their notice of appeal twenty- 22 four days late due to a calendaring mistake caused by attorneys and paralegals misapplying a clear 23 legal rule); Lemoge v. United States, 587 F.3d 1188, 1192 (9th Cir. 2009) (quoting Pioneer 24 Investment Services Co. v. Brunswick Associates Limited Partnership, 507 U.S. 380, 394 (1993) 25 (“[e]xcusable neglect ‘encompass[es] situations in which the failure to comply with a filing deadline 26 is attributable to negligence,’ and includes ‘omissions caused by carelessness.’”). 27 Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Extend Time 1 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff will have through and including May 27, 2025 2 to effect service of process on Defendants. No further extensions of the service date will be granted 3 absent a showing of due diligence. 4 Dated this 26th day of March, 2025. 5

6 ELAYNA J. YOUCHAH 7 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

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

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3 * * *

4 COURAGE ELKSHOULDER, Case No. 2:24-cv-002281-EJY

5 Plaintiff, ORDER 6 v.

7 NATIONAL CONSUMER TELECOM & UTILITIES EXCHANGE, INC.; INNOVIS 8 DATA SOLUTIONS, INC. and CLARITY SERVICES, INC., 9 Defendants. 10 11 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Extend Time to Serve (ECF No. 9). Plaintiff 12 explains a calendaring error resulted in the failure to timely serve Defendants. 13 Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) “[i]f a defendant is not served within 90 days 14 after the complaint is filed, the court—on motion or on its own after notice to the plaintiff—must 15 dismiss the action without prejudice against that defendant or order that service be made within a 16 specified time. But if the plaintiff shows good cause for the failure, the court must extend the time 17 for service for an appropriate period.” Recent Ninth Circuit case law holds a calendaring error, 18 whether the result of carelessness, negligence or falling within the meaning of excusable neglect is 19 sufficient to warrant an extension under the circumstances explained here. Pincay v. Andrews, 389 20 F.3d 853, 858-60 (9th Cir. 2004) (en banc) (affirming the district court’s finding of excusable neglect 21 within the meaning of Appellate Rule 4(a)(5) when the defendants filed their notice of appeal twenty- 22 four days late due to a calendaring mistake caused by attorneys and paralegals misapplying a clear 23 legal rule); Lemoge v. United States, 587 F.3d 1188, 1192 (9th Cir. 2009) (quoting Pioneer 24 Investment Services Co. v. Brunswick Associates Limited Partnership, 507 U.S. 380, 394 (1993) 25 (“[e]xcusable neglect ‘encompass[es] situations in which the failure to comply with a filing deadline 26 is attributable to negligence,’ and includes ‘omissions caused by carelessness.’”). 27 Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Extend Time 1 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff will have through and including May 27, 2025 2 to effect service of process on Defendants. No further extensions of the service date will be granted 3 absent a showing of due diligence. 4 Dated this 26th day of March, 2025. 5

6 ELAYNA J. YOUCHAH 7 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Elkshoulder v. National Consumer Telecom & Utilities Exchange, Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/elkshoulder-v-national-consumer-telecom-utilities-exchange-inc-nvd-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack