Kriley v. Browne

CourtDistrict Court, W.D. Washington
DecidedJune 28, 2022
Docket2:21-cv-01176
StatusUnknown

This text of Kriley v. Browne (Kriley v. Browne) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. Washington primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Kriley v. Browne, (W.D. Wash. 2022).

Opinion

6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 7 AT SEATTLE

8 ALENA KRILEY, No. 2:21-cv-01176-JHC

9 Plaintiff, ORDER

10 vs.

11 CHARLIE BROWNE, JAMIE PHIFER, STAFF MEMBER UNKNOWN NAME, ALL 12 WOMEN'S CARE,

13 Defendants.

15 This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s motion regarding service of process on 16 Defendant Jamie Phifer. Dkt. # 35. The Court has reviewed the materials submitted in support 17 of and in opposition to the motion. Plaintiff did not submit a reply in support of the motion. 18 The Court finds that Plaintiff has not served Defendant Phifer with process. But district 19 courts have broad discretion to extend time for service under Rule 4(m). In Henderson v. United 20 States, 517 U.S. 654, 61 (1996), the Supreme Court observed that Rule 4’s time period for 21 service “operates not as an outer limit subject to reduction, but as an irreducible allowance.” See 22 also Mann v. American Airlines, 324 F.3d 1088, 1090 (9th Cir. 2003) (“Rule 4(m) explicitly permits a district court to grant an extension of time to serve the complaint”). In making 23

ORDER – 1 1 || extension decisions under Rule 4(m), a district court may consider factors such as the statute of > limitations bar, prejudice to the defendant, actual notice of the lawsuit, and eventual service.

3 Efaw v. Williams, 473 F.3d 1038, 1041 (9th Cir. 2007). Here, based on the materials submitted in connection with the motion, the Court finds good cause under Rule 4(m) for Plaintiff’s failure to serve Defendant Phifer. Factors supporting 5 an extension here include: (1) the lack of any apparent prejudice to the defendant; (2) the statute of limitations; (3) actual notice of the lawsuit; and (4) Plaintiff's apparent good-faith efforts to 7|| serve this defendant within the 90 days. 8 Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the motion in part. Plaintiff may have until July 29, 9 2022 to serve Defendant Phifer with process.

10 DATED this 28th day of June, 2022.

C]oba 4, Chur Judg¢ John H. Chun 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 ORDER - 2 CAUSE NO. 2:21-cv-01176

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

Related

Henderson v. United States
517 U.S. 654 (Supreme Court, 1996)
Roderick Courtney Mann v. American Airlines
324 F.3d 1088 (Ninth Circuit, 2003)
Efaw v. Williams
473 F.3d 1038 (Ninth Circuit, 2007)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Kriley v. Browne, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kriley-v-browne-wawd-2022.