Span v. Goodman
This text of 74 F. App'x 820 (Span v. Goodman) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
MEMORANDUM
Darlene Span appeals pro se the district court’s judgment dismissing without prejudice her action against her former attorney alleging malpractice. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review the district court’s dismissal for failure to serve a timely complaint and summons for an abuse of discretion, see Walker v. Sumner, 14 F.3d 1415, 1422 (9th Cir.1994), and we affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Span’s complaint because Span failed to demonstrate service for over seventeen months after the complaint was filed, and after the district court warned her that failure to effect service would result in dismissal. See Fed. R.Civ.P. 4(m); Oyama v. Sheehan (In re Sheehan), 253 F.3d 507, 511 (9th Cir.2001).
We construe Span’s objections to this Court’s order permitting the withdrawal of her counsel on appeal as a motion for reconsideration, and deny the motion.
Span’s remaining contentions lack merit.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
74 F. App'x 820, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/span-v-goodman-ca9-2003.