Norris v. Shenzhen IVPS Technology Company Limited

D. Arizona

Norris v. Shenzhen IVPS Technology Company Limited

DecidedSeptember 2, 2020

Docket2:20-cv-01212

StatusUnknown

This text of Norris v. Shenzhen IVPS Technology Company Limited (Norris v. Shenzhen IVPS Technology Company Limited) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Arizona primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Norris v. Shenzhen IVPS Technology Company Limited, (D. Ariz. 2020).

Pincite

Opinion

1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

9 Ronald Norris, No. CV-20-01212-PHX-DWL

10 Plaintiff, ORDER

11 v.

12 Shenzhen IVPS Technology Company Limited, et al., 13 Defendants. 14 15 The Court construes Plaintiff’s notice (Doc. 6) as a request for relief from the 16 portion of the Court’s standard preliminary order directing the Clerk of Court to 17 terminate any defendant not served pursuant to Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil 18 Procedure by September 16, 2020 (Doc. 5). 19 Plaintiff correctly notes that Rule 4(m) does not apply to service in a foreign 20 country. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m); see also Lucas v. Natoli, 936 F.2d 432, 432-33 (9th Cir. 21 1991). However, “[w]hile the Ninth Circuit, to the Court’s knowledge, has never 22 specifically imposed any deadline on serving a foreign defendant, the Court has the 23 inherent authority to set a deadline for serving a foreign defendant.” Arizona Sch. Risk 24 Retention Tr., Inc. v. NMTC, Inc., 2015 WL 13764317, *1 (D. Ariz. 2015). The Court 25 will set a deadline of September 30, 2020, which may be extended by Plaintiff’s request 26 if service isn’t possible by that deadline despite “reasonable efforts to serve Defendants 27 in a timely manner.” Sport Lisboa e Benfica - Futebol SAD v. Doe 1, 2018 WL 4043182, 28 *4 (C.D. Cal. 2018). 1 2 Accordingly, 3 IT IS ORDERED that the Court’s order that the Clerk shall dismiss this action if 4|| service is not effected by September 16, 2020 (Doc. 5) is vacated. 5 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that by September 30, 2020, Plaintiff shall either 6|| (1) serve Defendants or (2) file a motion for extension of time to serve, detailing his || reasonable efforts to timely serve Defendants. 8 Dated this 2nd day of September, 2020. 9 10 Lom ee” ul f CC —— Dominic W. Lanza 12 United States District Judge 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

-2-

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

1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

9 Ronald Norris, No. CV-20-01212-PHX-DWL

10 Plaintiff, ORDER

11 v.

12 Shenzhen IVPS Technology Company Limited, et al., 13 Defendants. 14 15 The Court construes Plaintiff’s notice (Doc. 6) as a request for relief from the 16 portion of the Court’s standard preliminary order directing the Clerk of Court to 17 terminate any defendant not served pursuant to Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil 18 Procedure by September 16, 2020 (Doc. 5). 19 Plaintiff correctly notes that Rule 4(m) does not apply to service in a foreign 20 country. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m); see also Lucas v. Natoli, 936 F.2d 432, 432-33 (9th Cir. 21 1991). However, “[w]hile the Ninth Circuit, to the Court’s knowledge, has never 22 specifically imposed any deadline on serving a foreign defendant, the Court has the 23 inherent authority to set a deadline for serving a foreign defendant.” Arizona Sch. Risk 24 Retention Tr., Inc. v. NMTC, Inc., 2015 WL 13764317, *1 (D. Ariz. 2015). The Court 25 will set a deadline of September 30, 2020, which may be extended by Plaintiff’s request 26 if service isn’t possible by that deadline despite “reasonable efforts to serve Defendants 27 in a timely manner.” Sport Lisboa e Benfica - Futebol SAD v. Doe 1, 2018 WL 4043182, 28 *4 (C.D. Cal. 2018). 1 2 Accordingly, 3 IT IS ORDERED that the Court’s order that the Clerk shall dismiss this action if 4|| service is not effected by September 16, 2020 (Doc. 5) is vacated. 5 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that by September 30, 2020, Plaintiff shall either 6|| (1) serve Defendants or (2) file a motion for extension of time to serve, detailing his || reasonable efforts to timely serve Defendants. 8 Dated this 2nd day of September, 2020. 9 10 Lom ee” ul f CC —— Dominic W. Lanza 12 United States District Judge 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

-2-

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Norris v. Shenzhen IVPS Technology Company Limited, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/norris-v-shenzhen-ivps-technology-company-limited-azd-2020.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack