Hernandez v. MRVS Enterprises Inc.

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: February 13, 2023
• Docket: 3:21-cv-06441
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 GERARDO HERNANDEZ, Case No. 21-cv-06441-JSC

8 Plaintiff, ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF’S 9 v. ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO CONTINUE SERVICE DEADLINE 10 MRVS ENTERPRISES INC., et al., Re: Dkt. No. 39 Defendants. 11

12 13 Plaintiff filed this disability access action August 19, 2021. (Dkt. No. 1.) On October 18, 14 2021, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion for administrative relief from the service deadline 15 because of difficulty serving Defendants. (Dkt. No. 9.) Plaintiff thereafter effectuated service on 16 Defendants. (Dkt. Nos. 10, 11.) Defendant MRVS Enterprises answered the complaint, but 17 following Defendant Pradeeep Kantilal Khatri’s non-appearance, Plaintiff moved for and obtained 18 his default. (Dkt. Nos. 12, 13, 16.) Following unsuccessful mediation, the Court ordered Plaintiff 19 to move for default judgment as to the defaulted defendant. (Dkt. No. 26.) Plaintiff requested 20 relief from the Court’s order because he alleges that Defendants are jointly and severally liable. 21 (Dkt. No. 28.) The Court granted Plaintiff’s request and entered a pretrial order. (Dkt. No. 31.) 22 The parties thereafter filed a stipulation granting Plaintiff leave to file a first amended complaint 23 “to allege additional access barriers which relate to his alleged disability which were identified 24 during the pendency of this action, and to correct the name of the property owners,” which the 25 Court granted. (Dkt. Nos. 33, 34.) 26 Plaintiff now again moves for administrative relief from the service deadline because of 27 issues serving Defendants Pradeep K. Khatri and Kokila Pradip Khatri. (Dkt. No. 39.) Plaintiff’s 1 {| 4-6.) Plaintiff's counsel indicates that she has hired a process server “who specializes in 2 ‘difficult service.’” Ud. at 49.) Plaintiff seeks until April 6, 2023 to effectuate service or move 3 for service by publication. Defendant MRVS Enterprises opposes Plaintiff's request because he 4 || contends Plaintiff has not been diligent in effectuating service and “is attempting to serve the same 5 or similar parties since the lawsuit was filed.” (Dkt. No. 40 at 3.) 6 Plaintiff's motion for administrative relief is GRANTED IN PART. Defendant has not 7 shown any prejudice by the delay in service and while one of defendants is the same as a 8 || previously named defendant, Plaintiff is required to serve the Amended Complaint on all 9 Defendants. See Emp. Painters’ Tr. v. Ethan Enterprises, Inc., 480 F.3d 993, 999 (9th Cir. 2007) 10 (discussing service requirements for amended complaints under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 11 5). Accordingly, the service deadline is extended to March 16, 2023. Plaintiff must file 12 || proof of service of the summons and complaint or a motion for alternate service by this date. 13 This Order disposes of Docket No. 39. 14 IT IS SO ORDERED. a 16 Dated: February 13, 2023

18 Degut sto JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLE 19 United States District Judge 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28