Relator LLC et al. v. William E. Taylor, Jr. et al.

E.D. California

Relator LLC et al. v. William E. Taylor, Jr. et al.

DecidedOctober 15, 2025

Docket2:23-cv-00631

StatusUnknown

This text of Relator LLC et al. v. William E. Taylor, Jr. et al. (Relator LLC et al. v. William E. Taylor, Jr. et al.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Relator LLC et al. v. William E. Taylor, Jr. et al., (E.D. Cal. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RELATOR LLC et al., No. 2:23-cv-00631-DAD-SCR 12 Plaintiffs, 13 v. ORDER GRANTING/DENYING PLAINTIFF’S EX PARTE APPLICATION 14 WILLIAM E. TAYLOR, JR. et al., FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO SERVE DEFENDANTS 15 Defendants. (Doc. No. 27) 16

17 18 This matter is before the court on plaintiff Relator LLC’s ex parte application for 19 extension of time to serve defendants William Taylor, Jr. and Heath Quick. (Doc. No. 27.) On 20 April 5, 2023, plaintiff filed this qui tam action pursuant to 31 U.S.C. § 3729 et seq. against 21 defendants William E. Taylor Jr., Heath Quick, and Hometown Lender, Inc. (Doc. No. 1.) The 22 action was sealed on April 5, 2023 (Doc. No. 2), then unsealed on April 11, 2025 after the 23 government declined to intervene in this matter. (Doc. No. 18.) 24 In its pending ex parte application, plaintiff represents that its previous lead counsel on 25 this case, attorney Julian Brew, passed away on February 14, 2025. (Doc. No. 27-1 at 2.) Mr. 26 Brew was the only attorney listed on the docket for plaintiff in this matter until October 3, 2025. 27 (Doc. No. 27-2 at 1.) The attorneys who assumed Mr. Brew’s caseload after his passing were 28 initially unaware that the undersigned had unsealed this action on April 11, 2025. (Doc. No. 27-1 1 at 2.) Upon discovery of the order unsealing the action, new counsel for plaintiff requested an 2 amended summons which they sent for rushed service to all three defendants on October 3, 2025. 3 (Id.) On October 8, 2025, a summons was returned executed for defendant Hometown Lender, 4 Inc. (Id.) However, plaintiff was unable to serve defendants William Taylor Jr. and Heath Quick 5 because the “business address on the Alabama Secretary of State’s registry was outdated.” (Id.); 6 (Doc. No. 25.) Plaintiff represents that it “is continuing its efforts to serve Defendants William E. 7 Taylor, Jr. and Heath Quick.” (Doc. No. 27-1 at 2.) Plaintiff now moves ex parte for a 30-day 8 extension of time to effect service on defendants William Taylor Jr. and Heath Quick pursuant to 9 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 4(m) and 6(b)(1)(B). 10 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) states: 11 If a defendant is not served within 90 days after the complaint is filed, the court—on motion or on its own after notice to the plaintiff—must 12 dismiss the action without prejudice against that defendant or order that service be made within a specified time. But if the plaintiff 13 shows good cause for the failure, the court must extend the time for service for an appropriate period. 14 15 Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). “District courts have broad discretion to extend time for service under Rule 16 4(m).” Efaw v. Williams, 473 F.3d 1038, 1041 (9th Cir. 2007). “At minimum, ‘good cause’ 17 equates with the ‘excusable neglect’ standard courts apply under Rule 6(b).” Zero Motorcycles, 18 Inc. v. Nikola Motor Co., No. 17-cv-05370-MEJ, 2018 WL 1696867, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 6, 19 2018) (citation omitted). “[M]istake or oversight does not constitute good cause for an extension 20 of time under Rule 4.” Rodriguez v. Pfeiffer, No. 1:21-cv-00572-JLTE-PG, 2022 WL 686454, at 21 *2 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 8, 2022). However, a “plaintiff may show good cause where it attempted to 22 serve a defendant but has not yet completed it, was confused about the requirements for service of 23 process, or was prevented from serving a defendant because of events outside of its control.” 24 Third World Media, LLC v. Does 1-1568, No. 10-04470-LB, 2011 WL 4344160, at *2 (N.D. Cal. 25 Sept. 15, 2011) (citation omitted). In considering whether a plaintiff has made a showing of good 26 cause, courts consider: “(1) whether the delay resulted from inadvertence or whether a reasonable 27 effort to effect service has occurred; (2) whether defendant has been prejudiced by the delay; or 28 (3) whether plaintiff has moved for an enlargement of time to effect service under FRCP 6(b).” 1 Raiser v. San Diego Cnty., No. 19-cv-00751-GPC-KSC, 2019 WL 4675773, at *2 (S.D. Cal. 2 Sept. 25, 2019) (citation omitted). Finally, even if plaintiff fails to demonstrate good cause for 3 extension of time for service, “the district court may, in its discretion, grant an extension [under 4 Rule 4(m)].” Brandon H. v. Kennewick Sch. Dist. No. 17, 133 F.3d 925 (9th Cir. 1998) (emphasis 5 in original). 6 Here, the only attorney on behalf of plaintiff initially appearing on the docket in this 7 action, Mr. Brew, passed away before the undersigned unsealed the case. (Doc. No. 27-1 at 2.) 8 Mr. Brew’s passing “created a backlog of work” for his firm to parse through, which ultimately 9 lead to the service of process deadline passing unnoticed. (Id.) These events were beyond 10 plaintiff’s control. Moreover, plaintiff’s new counsel immediately attempted to serve all 11 defendants after entering their appearance as the attorneys of record for plaintiff. (Doc. Nos. 24; 12 27-2 at 1.) Counsel’s conduct in light of such unfortunate circumstances presented is reasonable 13 and diligent, not inadvertence. See Davis v. Walmart, Inc., No. 1:22-cv-01381-ADA-CDB, 2023 14 WL 3093803, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 26, 2023) (“‘half-hearted’ attempts to timely effect service do 15 not constitute good cause for an extension of the time to serve under Rule 4(m)”). Indeed, “‘good 16 cause’ is equated with diligence.” Fisher v. TheVegasPackage.com, Inc., No. 2:19-cv-01613- 17 JAD-VCF, 2019 WL 6828295, at *1 (D. Nev. Dec. 12, 2019). Furthermore, there are no 18 indications from the record that the unserved defendants will be prejudiced by the granting of an 19 extension to serve them. Finally, even if plaintiff failed to establish good cause, the court could 20 exercise its discretion to extend the service of process deadline as other courts have done under 21 far more questionable circumstances. See Rodriguez, 2022 WL 686454, at *2 (exercising Rule 4 22 discretion to grant a 60-day extension to serve party even though plaintiff’s counsel was unaware 23 of that oversight until the court issued an order to show cause why that unserved party should not 24 be dismissed). 25 Ultimately, having considered plaintiff’s ex parte request and the arguments set forth 26 therein, the court finds that there is good cause to grant plaintiff’s request for a 30-day extension 27 ///// 28 ///// 1 | of the time to effectuate service on defendants William Taylor Jr. and Heath Quick. Accordingly, 2 | plaintiff shall serve defendants William Taylor Jr. and Heath Quick within 30 days of the 3 | issuance of this order. 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. > | Dated: _ October 14, 2025 Dab A. 2, sxe 6 DALE A. DROZD 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

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

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RELATOR LLC et al., No. 2:23-cv-00631-DAD-SCR 12 Plaintiffs, 13 v. ORDER GRANTING/DENYING PLAINTIFF’S EX PARTE APPLICATION 14 WILLIAM E. TAYLOR, JR. et al., FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO SERVE DEFENDANTS 15 Defendants. (Doc. No. 27) 16

17 18 This matter is before the court on plaintiff Relator LLC’s ex parte application for 19 extension of time to serve defendants William Taylor, Jr. and Heath Quick. (Doc. No. 27.) On 20 April 5, 2023, plaintiff filed this qui tam action pursuant to 31 U.S.C. § 3729 et seq. against 21 defendants William E. Taylor Jr., Heath Quick, and Hometown Lender, Inc. (Doc. No. 1.) The 22 action was sealed on April 5, 2023 (Doc. No. 2), then unsealed on April 11, 2025 after the 23 government declined to intervene in this matter. (Doc. No. 18.) 24 In its pending ex parte application, plaintiff represents that its previous lead counsel on 25 this case, attorney Julian Brew, passed away on February 14, 2025. (Doc. No. 27-1 at 2.) Mr. 26 Brew was the only attorney listed on the docket for plaintiff in this matter until October 3, 2025. 27 (Doc. No. 27-2 at 1.) The attorneys who assumed Mr. Brew’s caseload after his passing were 28 initially unaware that the undersigned had unsealed this action on April 11, 2025. (Doc. No. 27-1 1 at 2.) Upon discovery of the order unsealing the action, new counsel for plaintiff requested an 2 amended summons which they sent for rushed service to all three defendants on October 3, 2025. 3 (Id.) On October 8, 2025, a summons was returned executed for defendant Hometown Lender, 4 Inc. (Id.) However, plaintiff was unable to serve defendants William Taylor Jr. and Heath Quick 5 because the “business address on the Alabama Secretary of State’s registry was outdated.” (Id.); 6 (Doc. No. 25.) Plaintiff represents that it “is continuing its efforts to serve Defendants William E. 7 Taylor, Jr. and Heath Quick.” (Doc. No. 27-1 at 2.) Plaintiff now moves ex parte for a 30-day 8 extension of time to effect service on defendants William Taylor Jr. and Heath Quick pursuant to 9 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 4(m) and 6(b)(1)(B). 10 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) states: 11 If a defendant is not served within 90 days after the complaint is filed, the court—on motion or on its own after notice to the plaintiff—must 12 dismiss the action without prejudice against that defendant or order that service be made within a specified time. But if the plaintiff 13 shows good cause for the failure, the court must extend the time for service for an appropriate period. 14 15 Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). “District courts have broad discretion to extend time for service under Rule 16 4(m).” Efaw v. Williams, 473 F.3d 1038, 1041 (9th Cir. 2007). “At minimum, ‘good cause’ 17 equates with the ‘excusable neglect’ standard courts apply under Rule 6(b).” Zero Motorcycles, 18 Inc. v. Nikola Motor Co., No. 17-cv-05370-MEJ, 2018 WL 1696867, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 6, 19 2018) (citation omitted). “[M]istake or oversight does not constitute good cause for an extension 20 of time under Rule 4.” Rodriguez v. Pfeiffer, No. 1:21-cv-00572-JLTE-PG, 2022 WL 686454, at 21 *2 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 8, 2022). However, a “plaintiff may show good cause where it attempted to 22 serve a defendant but has not yet completed it, was confused about the requirements for service of 23 process, or was prevented from serving a defendant because of events outside of its control.” 24 Third World Media, LLC v. Does 1-1568, No. 10-04470-LB, 2011 WL 4344160, at *2 (N.D. Cal. 25 Sept. 15, 2011) (citation omitted). In considering whether a plaintiff has made a showing of good 26 cause, courts consider: “(1) whether the delay resulted from inadvertence or whether a reasonable 27 effort to effect service has occurred; (2) whether defendant has been prejudiced by the delay; or 28 (3) whether plaintiff has moved for an enlargement of time to effect service under FRCP 6(b).” 1 Raiser v. San Diego Cnty., No. 19-cv-00751-GPC-KSC, 2019 WL 4675773, at *2 (S.D. Cal. 2 Sept. 25, 2019) (citation omitted). Finally, even if plaintiff fails to demonstrate good cause for 3 extension of time for service, “the district court may, in its discretion, grant an extension [under 4 Rule 4(m)].” Brandon H. v. Kennewick Sch. Dist. No. 17, 133 F.3d 925 (9th Cir. 1998) (emphasis 5 in original). 6 Here, the only attorney on behalf of plaintiff initially appearing on the docket in this 7 action, Mr. Brew, passed away before the undersigned unsealed the case. (Doc. No. 27-1 at 2.) 8 Mr. Brew’s passing “created a backlog of work” for his firm to parse through, which ultimately 9 lead to the service of process deadline passing unnoticed. (Id.) These events were beyond 10 plaintiff’s control. Moreover, plaintiff’s new counsel immediately attempted to serve all 11 defendants after entering their appearance as the attorneys of record for plaintiff. (Doc. Nos. 24; 12 27-2 at 1.) Counsel’s conduct in light of such unfortunate circumstances presented is reasonable 13 and diligent, not inadvertence. See Davis v. Walmart, Inc., No. 1:22-cv-01381-ADA-CDB, 2023 14 WL 3093803, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 26, 2023) (“‘half-hearted’ attempts to timely effect service do 15 not constitute good cause for an extension of the time to serve under Rule 4(m)”). Indeed, “‘good 16 cause’ is equated with diligence.” Fisher v. TheVegasPackage.com, Inc., No. 2:19-cv-01613- 17 JAD-VCF, 2019 WL 6828295, at *1 (D. Nev. Dec. 12, 2019). Furthermore, there are no 18 indications from the record that the unserved defendants will be prejudiced by the granting of an 19 extension to serve them. Finally, even if plaintiff failed to establish good cause, the court could 20 exercise its discretion to extend the service of process deadline as other courts have done under 21 far more questionable circumstances. See Rodriguez, 2022 WL 686454, at *2 (exercising Rule 4 22 discretion to grant a 60-day extension to serve party even though plaintiff’s counsel was unaware 23 of that oversight until the court issued an order to show cause why that unserved party should not 24 be dismissed). 25 Ultimately, having considered plaintiff’s ex parte request and the arguments set forth 26 therein, the court finds that there is good cause to grant plaintiff’s request for a 30-day extension 27 ///// 28 ///// 1 | of the time to effectuate service on defendants William Taylor Jr. and Heath Quick. Accordingly, 2 | plaintiff shall serve defendants William Taylor Jr. and Heath Quick within 30 days of the 3 | issuance of this order. 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. > | Dated: _ October 14, 2025 Dab A. 2, sxe 6 DALE A. DROZD 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Relator LLC et al. v. William E. Taylor, Jr. et al., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/relator-llc-et-al-v-william-e-taylor-jr-et-al-caed-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack