Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_19-cv-00335/USCOURTS-azd-4_19-cv-00335-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question: Breach of Contract

---

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

Harvey Lloyd Hayden,

Plaintiff,

v. 

Prestige Horizons, et al.,

Defendants.

No. CV-19-00335-TUC-DCB

ORDER 

On April 20, 2020, the Court granted one last extension of time for the Plaintiff to serve 

the First Amended Complaint. Service was long overdue. Under Fed. R. Civ. P 4(m), 

service of a complaint is required within 90 days of the date it is filed, which here was June 

28, 2019. The Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint on July 12, 2019, which should 

have been served by September 28, 2019. Under Rule 4(m), a Court “must” dismiss a case 

for lack of service, unless a plaintiff shows good cause for the lack of services and may 

extend the service deadline for a reasonable amount of time. The Court granted such an 

extension on March 25, 2020 and explained in some detail the Plaintiff’s options for 

serving the First Amended Complaint on the corporate Defendants, Prestige 

Horizons. (Order (Doc. 9)). A second extension was granted on April 20, 2020, to May 

20, 2020, but this time the Court referred the Plaintiff to the instructions in the March 25, 

2020, Order, explained he was required to comply with the directives for serving the First 

Amended Complaint, and ordered that “NO FURTHER EXTENSIONS WOULD BE 

GRANDTED.” On April 24, 2020, the Plaintiff sent a letter to the Court, asking the Court 

Case 4:19-cv-00335-DCB Document 14 Filed 05/08/20 Page 1 of 3
- 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

to add several new Defendants to the case. The letter was docketed as a Motion for Leave 

to Amend. (Doc. 12.) To the extent this letter was intended to be a motion, it is denied. To 

amend the First Amended Complaint (Doc. 5) for any reason, including adding new

Defendants, the Plaintiff must file a motion and a Second Amended Complaint, which 

complies with Fed. R. Civ. P. 15 and LRCiv. 15.1 of the Rules of Practice for the United 

States District Court, District of Arizona (Local Rules).

Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint was filed as a matter of course. Fed. R. Civ. P. 

15(a)(1). Further amendment requires leave of the Court. Fed. R. Civ. P.15(a)(2). Leave 

should be freely given when justice so requires, id., but before the Court will consider the 

merits of the request, [1] the proposed Second Amended Complaint must be submitted in 

conformance with the Local Rules of this Court, LRCiv. 15.1. The Court recognizes that 

the Plaintiff is proceeding with this action pro se and will, therefore, construe his pleading 

liberally, but he must nevertheless comply with both the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 

and the Local Rules. Jacobsen v. Filler, 790 F.2d 1363, 1364–65 (9th Cir.1986). These 

rules may be found on the Court’s website: www.azd.uscourts.gov at Rules, General 

Orders & Forms.

Any newly added defendants, in the event the Court grants leave for Plaintiff to file 

a Second Amended Complaint, must be served pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4. Because the 

time allowed for serving the First Amended Complaint on the currently named Prestige 

Horizon Defendants will end before a Second Amended Complaint will be filed, assuming 

leave is granted, the Plaintiff is instructed to review Fed. R. Civ. P. 5 for serving the Second 

Amended Complaint on the Defendants Presitge Horizons.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that the Motion to Amend Complaint (Doc. 12) is DENIED, 

without prejudice to it being reurged pursuant to LRCiv. 15.1.

Case 4:19-cv-00335-DCB Document 14 Filed 05/08/20 Page 2 of 3
- 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

[1] The Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint must comport with Fed. R. Civ. P. 8 in 

alleging claims against all Defendants, including those Defendants he seeks to 

add. LRCiv. 15.1 (amended pleading may not incorporate by reference 

_________________

Dated this 8th day of May, 2020.

Case 4:19-cv-00335-DCB Document 14 Filed 05/08/20 Page 3 of 3