Orekhov v. Department of Homeland Security

W.D. Washington

Orekhov v. Department of Homeland Security

DecidedJuly 15, 2025

Docket2:25-cv-00463

StatusUnknown

This text of Orekhov v. Department of Homeland Security (Orekhov v. Department of Homeland Security) 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

Orekhov v. Department of Homeland Security, (W.D. Wash. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3

4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 7 KONSTANTIN OREKHOV, CASE NO. 2:25-cv-00463-JHC 8

ORDER 9 Plaintiff, 10 v. 11 DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY; UNITED STATES 12 CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES, 13

14 Defendants. 15

16 This matter comes before the Court sua sponte. The Court ordered Plaintiff to show 17 cause why this action should not be dismissed for failure to serve Defendants with a summons 18 and copy of the complaint within the timeframe provided under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 19 4(m). Dkt. # 2. In a response to the order to show cause, Plaintiff’s counsel explained that 20 counsel misunderstood the service requirements because this is counsel’s first federal civil case. 21 Dkt. # 4 at 2. 22 Even though Plaintiff does not show good cause to extend the 90-day period set forth in 23 Rule 4(m), the Court “retains broad discretion absent such a showing to dismiss the action or 24 extend the period for service.” Cadet v. Overlake Hosp. Med. Ctr., 2025 WL 1103973, at *2 1 (W.D. Wash. Apr. 14, 2025) (citing Efaw v. Williams, 473 F.3d 1038, 1041 (9th Cir. 2007)). 2 “[I]f good cause is not established, the district court may extend time for service upon a showing 3 of excusable neglect.” Lemoge v. United States, 587 F.3d 1188, 1198 (9th Cir. 2009).

4 To determine whether neglect is excusable, courts examine at least four factors: “(1) the 5 danger of prejudice to the opposing party; (2) the length of the delay and its potential impact on 6 the proceedings; (3) the reason for the delay; and (4) whether the [party] acted in good faith.” Id. 7 at 1192. The 90-day period set forth in Rule 4(m) expired on June 12, 2025. The Court finds 8 that extending the deadline about a month and a half will not unduly prejudice Defendants. And 9 because counsel contacted the Court to check on the status of this case in May 2025, the Court 10 finds that counsel is merely inexperienced and did not act in bad faith. Dkt. # 4 at 2. 11 Thus, the Court concludes that counsel’s neglect is excusable and extends the deadline 12 for service to July 29, 2025. The Court is not inclined to grant further extensions.

13 Dated this 15th day of July, 2025. 14 15 a John H. Chun 16 United States District Judge 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

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

1 2 3

4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 7 KONSTANTIN OREKHOV, CASE NO. 2:25-cv-00463-JHC 8

ORDER 9 Plaintiff, 10 v. 11 DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY; UNITED STATES 12 CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES, 13

14 Defendants. 15

16 This matter comes before the Court sua sponte. The Court ordered Plaintiff to show 17 cause why this action should not be dismissed for failure to serve Defendants with a summons 18 and copy of the complaint within the timeframe provided under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 19 4(m). Dkt. # 2. In a response to the order to show cause, Plaintiff’s counsel explained that 20 counsel misunderstood the service requirements because this is counsel’s first federal civil case. 21 Dkt. # 4 at 2. 22 Even though Plaintiff does not show good cause to extend the 90-day period set forth in 23 Rule 4(m), the Court “retains broad discretion absent such a showing to dismiss the action or 24 extend the period for service.” Cadet v. Overlake Hosp. Med. Ctr., 2025 WL 1103973, at *2 1 (W.D. Wash. Apr. 14, 2025) (citing Efaw v. Williams, 473 F.3d 1038, 1041 (9th Cir. 2007)). 2 “[I]f good cause is not established, the district court may extend time for service upon a showing 3 of excusable neglect.” Lemoge v. United States, 587 F.3d 1188, 1198 (9th Cir. 2009).

4 To determine whether neglect is excusable, courts examine at least four factors: “(1) the 5 danger of prejudice to the opposing party; (2) the length of the delay and its potential impact on 6 the proceedings; (3) the reason for the delay; and (4) whether the [party] acted in good faith.” Id. 7 at 1192. The 90-day period set forth in Rule 4(m) expired on June 12, 2025. The Court finds 8 that extending the deadline about a month and a half will not unduly prejudice Defendants. And 9 because counsel contacted the Court to check on the status of this case in May 2025, the Court 10 finds that counsel is merely inexperienced and did not act in bad faith. Dkt. # 4 at 2. 11 Thus, the Court concludes that counsel’s neglect is excusable and extends the deadline 12 for service to July 29, 2025. The Court is not inclined to grant further extensions.

13 Dated this 15th day of July, 2025. 14 15 a John H. Chun 16 United States District Judge 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Orekhov v. Department of Homeland Security, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/orekhov-v-department-of-homeland-security-wawd-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack