GEICO Choice Insurance Company v. Aparicio

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: December 18, 2020
• Docket: 2:20-cv-01746
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 4 *** 5 GEICO CHOICE INSURANCE COMPANY, 6 Plaintiff, 7 2:20-cv-01746-JAD-VCF

8 vs. ORDER

9 HENRY BIDERMAN APARICO, et al.,

10 Defendants. 11 Before the Court is the Plaintiff’s Ex Parte Motion for Extension of Time to Complete Service 12 Pursuant to F.R.C.P. 4(m) (ECF No. 17). 13 Plaintiff seeks a 120-day extension under FED. R. CIV. P. 4(m) to effectuate service upon the 14 Defendants Aparicio and Mocore LLC. 15 A. Relevant Background 16 On September 22, 2020, Plaintiff filed a Complaint for Declaratory Judgment. (ECF NO. 1). 17 Plaintiff states that only Defendants Aparicio and Mocore LLC need to be served. All other defendants 18 have been served. 19 B. Relevant Law 20 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m), “[i]f a defendant is not served within 90 days 21 after the complaint is filed, the court--on motion or on its own after notice to the plaintiff--must dismiss 22 the action without prejudice against that defendant or order that service be made within a specified time. 23 But if the plaintiff shows good cause for the failure, the court must extend the time for service for an 24 appropriate period.” “The 90-day time limit imposed by Rule 4(m) expires 90 days after the first 25 complaint in which the defendant is named...” is filed. Bolden v. City of Topeka, 441 F.3d 1129, 1148 (10th Cir. 2006)(emphasis added). Id. The district court may extend time for service of process 1 || retroactively after the 90-day service period has expired. See Mann v. American Airlines, 324 F.3d 1088, 2 || 1090 (9th Cir.2003). 3 || C. Discussion 4 The time to effectuate service upon the Defendants Aparicio and Mocore LLC has expired, and 5 || Plaintiff must make a showing of good cause or excusable neglect in order for the court to extend this 6 || deadline for an appropriate period. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4m); Lemoge, 587 F.3d at 1198; Mann, 324 F.3d 7 || at 1090 (the court may extend the deadline for service of process retroactively). Here, Plaintiff asserts 8 || that it has been unable to perfect service of process on Defendants Aparicio and Mocore LLC. Aparicio 9 |]is in prison and service cannot be effectuated due to Covid-19 restrictions. Mocore LLC has unknown 10 || addresses. (ECF No. 17). 11 The court finds that good cause warrants extending the service of process deadline. 12 Accordingly, and for good cause shown, 13 IT IS ORDERED that the Plaintiff’s Ex Parte Motion for Extension of Time to Complete Service 14 |} Pursuant to F.R.C.P. 4m) (ECF No. 17) is GRANTED. The deadline to perfect service on Defendants 15 || Aparicio and Mocore LLC, is extended up to and including April 19, 2021. 16 Plaintiff has not provided the court with any reason to grant the relief on an ex parte basis. 17 |} Pursuant to Local Rule IA 7-2(b), neither party nor an attorney for any party may make an ex parte 18 |}communication with the court except as specifically permitted by the local rules or the Federal Rules of 19 |} Civil Procedure. 20 The Clerk of Court is directed to remove the ex parte status on Plaintiff's Ex Parte Motion for 21 || Extension of Time to Complete Service Pursuant to F.R.C.P. 4(m) (ECF No. 17). 22 DATED this 18th day of December, 2020. □ Zs é 23 CAM FERENBACH UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE