Innovative Sports Management, Inc. v. Huaman

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: January 17, 2025
• Docket: 5:24-cv-06103
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 INNOVATIVE SPORTS MANAGEMENT, Case No. 5:24-cv-06103-PCP INC., 8 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTON TO 9 EXTEND TIME FOR SERVICE AND v. DISMISSING CASE 10 SERGIO ROBLES HUAMAN, Re: Dkt. No. 18 11 Defendant.

12 Plaintiff Innovative Sports Management served defendant Sergio Robles Huaman after the 13 deadline for doing so had passed. Innovative Sports Management now moves for an extension of 14 time. For the following reasons, the motion is denied and the case is dismissed without prejudice. 15 After an action is commenced, a plaintiff must serve the complaint on the defendant within 16 90 days. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). “If a defendant is not served within 90 days after the complaint is 17 filed, the court … must dismiss the action without prejudice against that defendant or order that 18 service be made within a specified time.” Id. The deadline for service is intended to force parties 19 and their attorneys to be diligent in prosecuting their case. Fimbres v. United States, 833 F.2d 138, 20 139 (9th Cir. 1987). 21 Rule 4(m) also provides that “if the plaintiff shows good cause for the failure, the court 22 must extend the time for service for an appropriate period.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). “At a minimum, 23 ‘good cause’ means excusable neglect.” In re Sheehan, 253 F.3d 507, 512 (9th Cir. 2013). 24 Excusable neglect is an equitable determination based on at least four factors: “(1) the danger of 25 prejudice to the opposing party; (2) the length of delay and its potential impact on the proceedings; 26 (3) the reason for the delay; and (4) whether the movant acted in good faith.” Bateman v. U.S. 27 Postal Serv., 231 F.3d 1220, 1223–24 (9th Cir. 2000). In addition to excusable neglect, a plaintiff 1 may be required to show the following factors to bring the excuse to the level of good cause: “(a) 2 || the party to be served personally received actual notice of the lawsuit; (b) the defendant would 3 suffer no prejudice; and (c) plaintiff would be severely prejudiced if his complaint were 4 dismissed.” Lemoge v. United States, 587 F.3d 1188, 1198 n.3 (9th Cir. 2009) (quoting Boudette v. 5 || Barnette, 923 F.2d 754, 756 (9th Cir. 1991)). 6 The complaint in this case was filed August 28, 2024. Huaman was served December 3, 7 2024. Accordingly, he was not served within 90 days of filing the complaint, as required by Rule 8 4(m). Innovative Sports Management made two prior attempts at service, both of which also 9 occurred after the 90-day period had already passed. It offers no explanation for the delay. 10 || Innovative Sports Management has thus failed to show good cause or excusable neglect. 11 Accordingly, the Court denies Innovative Sports Management’s motion to extend the time 12 || for service and dismisses this case without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 3 15 Dated: January 17, 2025 16 A Z.

Meg le 8 P. Casey Pitts nited States District Judge 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28