Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-02403/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-02403-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 820
Nature of Suit: Copyright
Cause of Action: 17:101 Copyright Infringement

---

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 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Wake Up And Ball, LLC, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Sony Music Entertainment, et al., 

Defendants.

No. CV14-02403-PHX-DGC

ORDER 

 Defendants Deepfreeze Entertainment LLC and Robert Carr have filed a motion to 

dismiss for insufficient service of process and failure to join a required party. Doc. 22. 

Plaintiff Wake Up and Ball LLC has responded and requested sanctions and attorney’s 

fees. Doc. 27. The Court will deny Defendants’ motion and Plaintiff’s request. 

I. Service of Process. 

Plaintiff is required to execute service of process on each Defendant within 120 

days of naming them in a complaint. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). Plaintiff named Deepfreeze 

as a defendant in its complaint dated October 28, 2014, and Robert Carr as a defendant in 

an amended complaint dated December 19, 2014. Docs. 1, 8. Service of process for 

Deepfreeze was due by February 25, 2015, and service of process for Defendant Carr was 

due by April 20, 2015. Plaintiff did not serve Deepfreeze and Carr by these deadlines, 

and Defendants argue that they should be dismissed for that reason. 

 

Case 2:14-cv-02403-DGC Document 42 Filed 04/16/15 Page 1 of 4
- 2 - 

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 

 Under Rule 4(m), if a plaintiff shows good cause for failure to serve within 120 

days, the Court must extend the time period. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m); In re Sheehan, 253 

F.3d 507, 512 (9th Cir. 2001). “‘At a minimum, good cause means excusable neglect.’ 

. . . [A] plaintiff may be required to show the following factors in order to bring the 

excuse to the level of good cause: ‘(a) the party to be served received actual notice of the 

lawsuit; (b) the defendant would suffer no prejudice; and (c) plaintiff would be severely 

prejudiced if his complaint were dismissed.’” In re Sheehan, 253 F.3d at 512 (quoting 

Boudette v. Barnette, 923 F.2d 754, 756 (9th Cir. 1991)). If a plaintiff does not show 

good cause for his failure to serve, the Court has discretion to dismiss without prejudice 

or to extend the time period. Id.

 According to an affidavit submitted by Plaintiff’s counsel, Plaintiff has attempted 

on numerous occasions to serve both Defendants. Doc. 28. Additionally, Plaintiff’s 

counsel states that he has had difficulty finding the proper address for these Defendants, 

persons at different addresses have refused service, and Defendants’ counsel has been 

uncooperative in furnishing the appropriate addresses. Id. These facts show good cause 

for Plaintiff’s failure to serve. Furthermore, Defendants have received notice of this 

lawsuit (as evidenced by this motion to dismiss), Defendants have not identified any 

prejudice they would suffer by extending the deadline for service, and Plaintiff would 

clearly be prejudiced if the complaint were dismissed. Finding good cause for Plaintiff’s 

failure to serve, the Court will extend the deadline for service on these Defendants to 

May 15, 2015. 

 Defendants also move to dismiss for failure to join a required party. Defendants 

appear to argue that because they are indispensable parties that should be dismissed for 

insufficient service of process, the entire lawsuit should be dismissed. Since the Court is 

extending the deadline for service of process, the Court finds it unnecessary to address 

this argument. 

 

Case 2:14-cv-02403-DGC Document 42 Filed 04/16/15 Page 2 of 4
- 3 - 

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 

 Finally, Plaintiff asks the Court to deem defense counsel’s receipt of Plaintiff’s 

second amendment complaint through the Court’s electronic case filing system as 

sufficient service of process on Defendant Carr. Plaintiff does not cite authority to 

support this request. The Supreme Court has instructed that “[i]n the absence of service 

of process (or waiver of service by the defendant), a court ordinarily may not exercise 

power over a party the complaint names as defendant.” Murphy Bros. v. Michetti Pipe 

Stringing, Inc., 526 U.S. 344, 350 (1999). Accordingly, the Court may not exercise 

jurisdiction over Defendant Carr until he has been properly served or waived service.1

II. Request for Sanctions & Attorneys’ Fees. 

 Plaintiff requests attorneys’ fees and that Defendants’ counsel be sanctioned. 

Plaintiff has not identified the rule or statute under which it is entitled to attorney’s fees 

and sanctions. The Court assumes that Plaintiff makes this request under Rule 11. 

Plaintiff, however, has not complied with the procedural requirements of Rule 11: 

The 1993 Amendments to Rule 11 . . . place stringent notice and filing requirements on parties seeking sanctions. When Rule 11 sanctions are 

initiated by motion of a party, that motion must be separate “from other motions or requests” and must “describe the specific conduct alleged to violate” Rule 11(b). In addition, the Rule’s safe harbor provision requires parties filing such motions to give the opposing party 21 days first to “withdraw or otherwise correct” the offending paper. We enforce this safe 

harbor provision strictly. 

Holgate v. Baldwin, 425 F.3d 671, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2005) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(c)); 

see also Radcliffe v. Rainbow Const. Co., 254 F.3d 772, 789 (9th Cir. 2001) (recognizing 

that compliance with the safe-harbor provision is “mandatory”). Plaintiff’s request for 

sanctions was not filed as a separate motion, nor did Plaintiff give Defendants twenty-one 

days to “withdraw or otherwise correct” the offending paper. 

IT IS ORDERED: 

1. Defendants’ motion to dismiss (Doc. 22) is denied. 

2. The deadline for serving Defendants Deepfreeze Entertainment LLC and 

 

1

 Plaintiff has submitted evidence that it served Deepfreeze on March 12, 2015. 

Doc. 28-1 at 38. Plaintiff must file proof of this service with the Clerk’s office. 

Case 2:14-cv-02403-DGC Document 42 Filed 04/16/15 Page 3 of 4
- 4 - 

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 

Robert Carr is extended to May 15, 2015. 

3. Plaintiff’s request for sanctions and attorney’s fees (Doc. 27) is denied. 

Dated this 16th day of April, 2015. 

Case 2:14-cv-02403-DGC Document 42 Filed 04/16/15 Page 4 of 4