Jackson v. MKRP LLC

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE DAWN DAKISHA JACKSON, CASE NO. 2:25-cv-00973-LK Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION TO v. CONTINUE JOINT STATUS REPORT MKRP LLC et al., Defendants.

This matter comes before the Court on Defendants’ Motion to Continue Joint Status Report. Dkt. No. 21. Pro se Plaintiff Dawn Jackson has not responded to the motion. Defendants seek to continue the parties’ September 22, 2025 deadline to file their joint status report “until further order of the Court, or at least sixty days following the Court’s ruling on Defendants’ Rule 12(b) motion.” Id. at 3. They argue that because Ms. Jackson has not served the three individual Defendants, “no meaningful Rule 26(f) conference can occur[.]” Id. at 2. Defendants further note that they filed motions to dismiss because “it is too late” for Ms. Jackson to serve the individual Defendants, and “Plaintiff’s claims are legally deficient and cannot proceed, even with leave to amend.” Id. at 2–3. Parties are required to confer pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f) “as soon as practicable” and then draft a report and discovery plan. The Court must issue a scheduling order “as soon as practicable, but unless the judge finds good cause for delay, the judge must issue it within the earlier of 90 days after any defendant has been served with the complaint or 60 days

after any defendant has appeared.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(1)–(2). All Defendants appeared on June 13, 2025. Dkt. Nos. 11–14. Good cause exists to delay issuing a scheduling order while the Court awaits the parties’ joint status report. However, Defendants have not shown good cause to further delay the parties’ submission of a joint status report. None of the reasons they cite is persuasive. First, Defendants do not dispute that MKRP, LLC has been served, and a Rule 26(f) conference is not foreclosed until after all Defendants have been served. See generally Dkt. No. 21; see also Dkt. No. 10 (proof of service). The fact that the same counsel represents all Defendants, see Dkt. Nos. 11–14, highlights that a Rule 26(f) conference could be meaningful for all parties. Second, it is not “too late” for Ms. Jackson to serve the individual Defendants as Defendants contend. Dkt. No. 21 at 2. The district

court must extend the 90-day service period upon a showing of good cause and, absent such a showing, retains broad discretion to dismiss the action or extend the period for service. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m); see In re Sheehan, 253 F.3d 507, 513 (9th Cir. 2001); Efaw v. Williams, 473 F.3d 1038, 1041 (9th Cir. 2007). Third, while Defendants rely on the pendency of their motions to dismiss to argue for delaying a Rule 26(f) conference and joint status report, the Court subsequently struck those motions “for violating Local Civil Rule 7(e)’s prohibition on ‘fil[ing] contemporaneous dispositive motions, each one directed toward a discrete issue or claim,’ without leave of Court.” Dkt. No. 22. Although those motions were stricken without prejudice on September 18, 2025, id., Defendants have not subsequently filed a motion to dismiss.

For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES Defendants’ Motion to Continue Joint Status Report, Dkt. No. 21, without prejudice. The parties must meet and confer and file a joint status report within 21 days of the date of this Order. Alternatively, Defendants may file a motion to dismiss during that time period, and if that occurs, the Court will defer the requirement to file a

joint status report. Dated this 6th day of October, 2025. A Lauren King United States District Judge