Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-02585/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-02585-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 340
Nature of Suit: Marine Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question: Personal Injury

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GEORGE LOUIS PEREZ, JR.,

Plaintiff,

 v.

VESSEL ASSIST, et al.,

Defendants. /

No. C-06-02585 EDL

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT

PREJUDICE DEFENDANTS’ MOTION

TO DISMISS

According to the complaint in this case, on July 20, 2004, Plaintiff George Perez purchased

insurance from Defendant Boat US Towing Services to have Plaintiff’s boat towed because the boat

had run aground in the bay. Plaintiff alleges that on the same day, he made arrangements to have

Defendant Vessel Assist, which is owned by Defendant Phil Delanoe, tow the boat. Plaintiff alleges

that Defendant Gary Burks works for Vessel Assist and is the captain who towed the boat. 

According to Plaintiff, the boat was towed and it sank into the bay. 

On September 26, 2006, Specially Appearing Defendants Vessel Assist, Phil Delanoe,

Gary Burks and Boat US Towing Services filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that the summons

and complaint were not served in compliance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m), or in the

alternative, that the service was insufficient. Plaintiff opposed this motion, arguing that service was

proper and timely. The Court held a hearing on November 14, 2006. 

For the reasons stated in Defendants’ motion to dismiss and at the hearing, the Court holds

that Plaintiff has not properly served Defendants. The time for service of the summons and

complaint, however, can be extended pursuant to Rule 4(m) upon the Court’s determination of good

cause. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m); In re Sheehan, 253 F.3d 507, 512 (9th Cir. 2001) (factors showing

Case 3:06-cv-02585-EDL Document 15 Filed 11/14/06 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

good cause include that: (1) the party to be served received actual notice of the lawsuit; (2)

defendant would suffer no prejudice; and (3) plaintiff would be severely prejudiced if his complaint

were dismissed). Applying the Sheehan factors in this case, the Court finds good cause to give

Plaintiff one more chance to properly serve Defendants. Accordingly, Plaintiff shall have 45 days

from the date of this order to complete service. Defendants’ motion to dismiss is denied without

prejudice. 

A further case management conference is scheduled for February 13, 2007 at 10:00 a.m. 

The parties shall file a joint case management conference statement no later than February 6, 2007. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 14, 2006 

ELIZABETH D. LAPORTE

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:06-cv-02585-EDL Document 15 Filed 11/14/06 Page 2 of 2