G & G Closed Circuit Events, LLC v. Barksdale

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: October 5, 2023
• Docket: 2:22-cv-02002
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 G & G CLOSED CIRCUIT EVENTS, No. 2:22-cv-2002 DB LLC, 12 13 Plaintiff, ORDER 14 v. 15 TOMMY BARKSDALE, et al., 16 Defendants. 17 18 This civil action has been directly assigned to the undersigned pursuant to the Local 19 Rules, Appendix A(m). On June 16, 2023, the undersigned issued plaintiff an order to show 20 cause as to why this action should not be dismissed due to a lack of prosecution. (ECF No. 11.) 21 On July 7, 2023, plaintiff filed a response stating that a potential issue with respect to service on a 22 defendant had arisen. (ECF No. 12.) Plaintiff requests a brief extension of time to accomplish 23 service. (Id. at 9.) 24 Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that a defendant must be 25 dismissed if service of the summons and complaint is not accomplished on the defendant within 26 90 days after the complaint was filed. 27 Rule 4(m) provides two avenues for relief. The first is mandatory: the district court must extend time for service upon a showing of 28 good cause. The second is discretionary: if good cause is not 1 established, the district court may extend time for service upon a showing of excusable neglect. 2 3 Crowley v. Bannister, 734 F.3d 967, 976 (9th Cir. 2013) (quoting Lemoge v. United States, 587 4 F.3d 1188, 1198 (9th Cir. 2009)). Here, plaintiff has shown good cause. 5 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff is granted a 35-day extension of 6 time to effect proper service. 7 DATED: October 5, 2023 /s/ DEBORAH BARNES UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 8

16 DLB:6 DB\orders\orders.civil\g&g2002.eot.ord 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28