Goodwin v. Marin County Transit District

N.D. California

Goodwin v. Marin County Transit District

DecidedJanuary 14, 2022

Docket3:21-cv-07251

StatusUnknown

This text of Goodwin v. Marin County Transit District (Goodwin v. Marin County Transit District) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, N.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Goodwin v. Marin County Transit District, (N.D. Cal. 2022).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 AUSTIN GOODWIN, Case No. 21-cv-07251-JSC 8 Plaintiff, ORDER RE: ADMINISTRATIVE 9 Vv. MOTION TO CONTINUE DEADLINE FOR SERVICE OF PROCESS 10 MARIN COUNTY TRANSIT DISTRICT, et al., Re: Dkt. No. 18 Defendants. qg 12

13 Plaintiffs administrative motion to continue the deadline for service of process on newly-

v 14 || added Defendant Marin Airporter is now pending before the Court. (Dkt. No. 18.) No response to

15 || the motion has been filed and the time to respond has run. See Civ. L.R. 7-11(b). 16 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) requires service of process on each named defendant

= 17 || within ninety days after the filing of a complaint. Fed. R. Civ. P.4(m). “For defendants who are

18 || added by later amendments to the complaint, the time limit for service runs from the date of the 19 amendment.” MERSCORP Holdings, Inc. v. Kelsey, No. CV 18—3802-JEFW (AFMx), 2018 WL 20 || 6445694, at *2 (C.D. Cal. July 26, 2018.) (citing McGuckin v. United States, 918 F.2d 811, 813 21 || (9th Cir. 1990)). Plaintiff filed his First Amended Complaint adding Marin Airporter as a 22 || Defendant on January 5, 2022. (Dkt. No. 14.) Accordingly, Plaintiff's administrative motion to 23 extend the time to serve until January 31, 2022 is DENIED AS MOOT. Plaintiff has 90 days from 24 || January 5, 2022 to serve Marin Airporter. 25 IT IS SO ORDERED. 26 || Dated: January 14, 2022 ne 27 28 JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLE United States Magistrate Judge

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

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 AUSTIN GOODWIN, Case No. 21-cv-07251-JSC 8 Plaintiff, ORDER RE: ADMINISTRATIVE 9 Vv. MOTION TO CONTINUE DEADLINE FOR SERVICE OF PROCESS 10 MARIN COUNTY TRANSIT DISTRICT, et al., Re: Dkt. No. 18 Defendants. qg 12

13 Plaintiffs administrative motion to continue the deadline for service of process on newly-

v 14 || added Defendant Marin Airporter is now pending before the Court. (Dkt. No. 18.) No response to

15 || the motion has been filed and the time to respond has run. See Civ. L.R. 7-11(b). 16 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) requires service of process on each named defendant

= 17 || within ninety days after the filing of a complaint. Fed. R. Civ. P.4(m). “For defendants who are

18 || added by later amendments to the complaint, the time limit for service runs from the date of the 19 amendment.” MERSCORP Holdings, Inc. v. Kelsey, No. CV 18—3802-JEFW (AFMx), 2018 WL 20 || 6445694, at *2 (C.D. Cal. July 26, 2018.) (citing McGuckin v. United States, 918 F.2d 811, 813 21 || (9th Cir. 1990)). Plaintiff filed his First Amended Complaint adding Marin Airporter as a 22 || Defendant on January 5, 2022. (Dkt. No. 14.) Accordingly, Plaintiff's administrative motion to 23 extend the time to serve until January 31, 2022 is DENIED AS MOOT. Plaintiff has 90 days from 24 || January 5, 2022 to serve Marin Airporter. 25 IT IS SO ORDERED. 26 || Dated: January 14, 2022 ne 27 28 JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLE United States Magistrate Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Goodwin v. Marin County Transit District, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/goodwin-v-marin-county-transit-district-cand-2022.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack