Halloum v. Caliber Home Loans

Opinion

3 * * *

4 YOUSIF H. HALLOUM and IMAN Y. Case No. 2:22-cv-01787-JAD-EJY HALLOUM, 5 Plaintiffs, ORDER 6 v. 7 CALIBER HOME LOANS; FAY 8 SERVICING; RED ROCK FINANCIAL; ASSESSMENT MANAGEMENT SERVICES; MANAGEMENT; LEVEL COMMUNITY 10 MANAGEMENT; AMERICAN RECOVERY SERVICES; and TERRAWEST

12 Defendants.

13 14 Pending before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Emergency Motion for Time Extension to Serve 15 Summons to Parties Listed in Doc. No. 65. ECF No. 85. 16 The Court notes that the Notice issued by the Clerk of Court in ECF No. 65 was filed on 17 February 17, 2023. The Notice gave Plaintiffs through March 19, 2023 to effect service on 18 Assessment Management Services, Association Recovery Services, Fannie Mae, and U.S. Bank 19 Trust, N.A. (the “Unserved Defendants”). Plaintiffs do not explain what they did during this more 20 than 30 day period in an attempt to prefect service. Instead, they now file a third request for extension 21 of time to accomplish service. 22 Despite their pro se status, Plaintiffs must comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 23 King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987). Plaintiffs initiated this case on October 26, 2022 24 (ECF No. 4) and, to date, have not served the Unserved Defendants. Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules 25 of Civil Procedure require service of named parties within 90 days of the filing of the Complaint. 26 Id. (“If a defendant is not served within 90 days after the complaint is filed, the court—on motion or 27 on its own after notice to the plaintiff—must dismiss the action without prejudice against that 1 || initiated this case was February 23, 2023. Today is March 22, 2023, and the evidence before tl 2 || Court demonstrates service has not been attempted on the Unserved Defendants. 3 Plaintiffs are advised that the Court exercises its inherent authority under Rule 4(m) to extet 4 || the date by which service must be accomplished. Plaintiffs are given through and including Api 5 || 30, 2023 to accomplish service. If service has not been effected as to the Unserved Defendants | 6 || or before that date, the Court will recommend dismissal without prejudice of these Defendants. 7 With respect to Plaintiffs’ allegation that Defendants “are taking advantage of Plaintiffs wl 8 || are pro se,” the Court rejects this unsupported contention. Counsel for the served parties are office 9 || ofthe Court. The Court will not entertain unsupported allegations of unprofessional conduct by suc 10 |} counsel. 11 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Emergency Motion for Tin 12 |} Extension to Serve Summons to Parties Listed in Doc. No. 65 (ECF No. 85) is GRANTED in pz 13 || and DENIED in part. 14 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs are granted one additional extension of time, 15 |} and including April 30, 2023, to effect service on Assessment Management Services, Associati: 16 || Recovery Services, Fannie Mae, and U.S. Bank Trust, N.A. 17 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if Assessment Management Services, Associatic 18 || Recovery Services, Fannie Mae, and U.S. Bank Trust, N.A. are not served by or before April 3 19 |} 2023, the Court will recommend dismissal without prejudice of these defendants. 20 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ allegations that they are being treat 21 || unprofessionally by counsel for the served Defendants is rejected as unsupported. 22 Dated this 22nd day of March, 2023. 23 24 . ELA J.YO H 25 UNITED’ STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 26 27 28