Garcia v. Marriott Hotels International

• Court: District Court, S.D. California
• Decided: October 26, 2023
• Docket: 3:23-cv-00972
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITESDT ATDEISS TRCIOCUTR T 9 SOTUHERN DISTROIFCC TA LIFORNIA 10 11 GARCIA, CasNeo .2:3 -CV-972-JO-SB 12 Plaintiff, 13 V. ORDEDRI SMISSCIANSGE WITHOUPTR EJUDICE 14 MARRIOTHTO TELS INTERNATIBOINAANLC;A 15 LOMELY ;S AND IEGPOO LICE 16 DEPARTMENT, 17 Defendants. 18 19 20 Plaifnitltiehffndi e sg liagnebdnr ceeoa fcc ohn tcraasocenMt a y2 52,0 2D3k.t1 .. 21D efendManatrr iwoatsste rwvietthdhe c ompltahisaamntet d ayI.d.T hCel eorfCk o urt 22 isssuuemdm oonnMs a y2 62,0 2D3k.2t ..H owevPelra,id nitndio sffte rtvhceeo mplai 23 ors ummoonnsD efendLaonmte alnydD efendSanatnD iegPoo liDceep artme 24 Additihoedn iandlol stye ,rt vhese u mmoonnDs e fendMaanrtr iOonSt etp.t e2m9b,e r 252 02t3h,Ce o urt Polradietnrote idscff ha ouwwsh eyt he schaosnueol btded ismifosrs e 26 failtuotr iem seelryDv eefe ndaasnr tesq ubiyFr eedd eRrualolefC ivPirlo ce4d(umr)e. 27 Dkt4..P lainrteisfpfwosan dssu eoe n O cto6b,e r2 I0d.2A3 s.o fO cto2b4e2,r0 23, 28 Plaihnatnsio sffte rDveefedn doarrn etssp otnothd eOe rdd teoSr h oCwa use. 1 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) requires a plaintiff to serve the complaint 2 || within 90 days of filing. Ifa plaintiff fails to do so, the Court must dismiss the case without 3 prejudice “unless the Court finds good cause for an extension of time.” Fed. R. Civ. 4 ||P. 4am). In the Ninth Circuit, “[a]t a minimum, ‘good cause’ means excusable neglect.” 5 re Sheehan, 253 F.3d 507, 512 (9th Cir. 2001) (quoting Boudette v. Barnette, 923 F.2d 6 || 754, 756 (9th Cir. 1991)). Courts have also interpreted “good cause” to mean that “service 7 |;has been attempted but not completed, that plaintiff was confused about the requirements 8 service, or that plaintiff was prevented from serving defendants by factors beyond his 9 ||control.” AF Holdings LLC v. Does 1-135, 2012 WL 1038671, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 27, 10 2012) (citation omitted). 11 Here, it has been 152 days since Plaintiff filed this action, and the Defendants have 12 |/not yet been served in accordance with Rule 4. Plaintiff has not responded to the Court’s 13 ||Order to Show Cause as to why he has not served Defendants, nor has he otherwise 14 || provided any justification for his failure to serve. Since Plaintiff has not established that 15 failure to serve was a result of excusable neglect or other significant hardship, the Court 16 || finds that he has not shown good cause for an extension of time as required by the Federal 17 Rules of Civil Procedure. Accordingly, the Court must dismiss the action pursuant to Rule 18 19 For the above reasons, the Court DISMISSES Plaintiffs case without prejudice. The 20 ||Court DIRECTS the clerk to close the case. 21 22 ISSO ORDERED. 23 Dated: October 24, 2023 24 : / □ 25 le Jinsook Ohta 36 nited States District Judge 27 28