United States v. Salazar

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: January 4, 2024
• Docket: 1:23-cv-01282
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10

11 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Case No. 1:23-cv-01282-CDB

12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING THIRD EX PARTE

APPLICATION TO EXTEND TIME FOR 13 v. SERVICE OF PROCESS

14 JAVIER SALAZAR, JR., et al., (Doc. 11)

15 Defendants. Deadline: February 9, 2024

16 17 On August 28, 2023, Plaintiff United States of America initiated this action with its filing 18 of a complaint against Defendants Javier Salazar, Jr., Javier Salazr, Sr., and Ricardo Covarrubias. 19 (Doc. 1). That same date, the Clerk of Court issued summonses and the Court entered an Order 20 setting a mandatory scheduling conference. (Docs. 2, 3). The Order directed Plaintiff to 21 “diligently pursue service of summons and complaint” and “promptly file proofs of service.” 22 The Order further advised Plaintiff that failure to diligently prosecute this action “may result in 23 the imposition of sanctions, including the dismissal of unserved defendants.” 24 With respect to service, where a plaintiff fails to serve a defendant within 90 days after 25 the complaint is filed, Rule 4(m), Fed. R. Civ. P. requires the Court to dismiss the action or order 26 that service be made within a specified time upon a showing by the plaintiff of “good cause” for 27 the delay. See In re Sheehan, 253 F.3d 507, 512 (9th Cir. 2001). 28 1 || application to continue the scheduling conference and extend the time for service of the 2 ||summons and complaint. (Docs. 5, 6). On November 22, 2023, the Court found good cause to 3 || grant Plaintiff’s second ex parte application to continue the scheduling conference and extend 4 || the time for service of the summons and complaint. (Docs. 7, 8). Thereafter, on December 15, 5 || 2023, Plaintiff filed proofs of service of the summons and complaint as to Defendnats Javier 6 || Salazar Sr. and Javier Salazar Jr. (Docs. 9-10). 7 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff's third ex parte application to extend the time for 8 || service of the summons and complaint as to Defendant Covarrubias. (Doc. 11). The application 9 || is supported by the declaration of counsel for Plaintiff who attests that Plaintiff mailed to 10 || Defendant Covarrubias a waiver of service, attempted to contact him by phone, and attempted to 11 || effectuate process of service five times. /d. at 3. Counsel for Plaintiff represents Plaintiff will 12 || continue to attempt service using an alternative address and will pursue alternative methods 13 || service upon Defendants if unsuccessful. Jd. Counsel for Plaintiff requests that the Court extend 14 || the time for service until February 9, 2024. Id. 15 In light of Plaintiff's representations and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY 16 |} ORDERED: 17 1. Pursuant to Rule 4(m), Fed. R. Civ. P., no later than February 9, 2024, Plaintiff 18 SHALL FILE either summonses returned executed as to Defendant Covarrubias 19 or a status report setting forth good cause for any requested service extension; and 20 2. The February 22, 2024 scheduling conference is reset to March 19, 2024, at 9:30 21 AM. before Magistrate Judge Christopher D. Baker. The parties are reminded of 22 their obligation to file a joint scheduling report at least one week prior to the 23 conference. (Doc. 3). 24 || TT IS SO ORDERED. * Dated: _ January 4, 2024 | Ww D i 26 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 27 28