Ma v. City of Seattle

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: February 5, 2020
• Docket: 2:19-cv-01764
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 7 ROLAND MA, 8 NO. C19-1764RSL Plaintiff, 9 v. ORDER EXTENDING TIME TO 10 RESPOND CITY OF SEATTLE, et al., 11 Defendants. 12 13 14 This matter comes before the Court on defendants’ “Motion for Extension of Time to 15 Answer or Otherwise Plead.” Dkt. # 40. Defendants appeared in this lawsuit on January 31, 16 17 2020, in response to plaintiff’s application for entry of default. They request additional time in 18 which to respond to the complaint, citing the need to evaluate the legal sufficiency of plaintiff’s 19 claims, apparent inadequacies in the service of the complaint and summons, and counsel’s 20 upcoming travel plans. Plaintiff opposes the request on the grounds that defendants have known 21 of his complaint for months and that counsel’s travel plans do not justify the requested 22 23 extension. Dkt. # 41. 24 Having reviewed the submissions of the parties, the request for an extension of time is 25 GRANTED. Service of the summons and complaint pursuant to the procedures set forth in 26 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4 is a jurisdictional prerequisite: 27 1 Before a federal court may exercise personal jurisdiction over a defendant, the 2 procedural requirement of service of summons must be satisfied. “[S]ervice of summons is the procedure by which a court having venue and jurisdiction of the 3 subject matter of the suit asserts jurisdiction over the person of the party served.” 4 Mississippi Publishing Corp. v. Murphree, 326 U.S. 438, 444-445 (1946). Thus, 5 before a court may exercise personal jurisdiction over a defendant, there must be more than notice to the defendant and a constitutionally sufficient relationship 6 between the defendant and the forum. There also must be a basis for the 7 defendant’s amenability to service of summons. Absent consent, this means there 8 must be authorization for service of summons on the defendant. 9 Omni Capital Int'l, Ltd. v. Rudolf Wolff & Co., 484 U.S. 97, 104 (1987). Counsel will be given a 10 reasonable amount of time outside of his travel schedule to investigate the adequacy of service 11 and the sufficiency of plaintiff’s claims. Defendants shall have until March 6, 2020, to answer or 12 otherwise respond to the complaint. 13 14 15 Dated this 5th day of February, 2020. A 16 Robert S. Lasnik 17 United States District Judge 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27