Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_07-cv-04853/USCOURTS-cand-5_07-cv-04853-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 820
Nature of Suit: Copyright
Cause of Action: 17:501 Copyright Infringement

---

EX PARTE APPLICATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER 

Case No. 5:07-cv-04853-HRL 

#37140 v1

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 

Matthew Franklin Jaksa (CA State Bar No. 248072) 

HOLME ROBERTS & OWEN LLP

560 Mission Street, 25th Floor 

San Francisco, CA 94105-2994 

Telephone: (415) 268-2000 

Facsimile: (415) 268-1999 

Email: matt.jaksa@hro.com 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs, 

WARNER BROS. RECORDS INC.; SONY 

BMG MUSIC ENTERTAINMENT; UMG 

RECORDINGS, INC.; and VIRGIN 

RECORDS AMERICA, INC. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN JOSE DIVISION 

WARNER BROS. RECORDS INC., a Delaware 

corporation; SONY BMG MUSIC 

ENTERTAINMENT, a Delaware general 

partnership; UMG RECORDINGS, INC., a 

Delaware corporation; and VIRGIN RECORDS 

AMERICA, INC., a California corporation, 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

CASEY MELINDA LENTZ, 

Defendant. 

CASE NO. 5:07-CV-04853-HRL 

Honorable Howard R. Lloyd 

EX PARTE APPLICATION TO EXTEND 

TIME TO SERVE DEFENDANT AND 

CONTINUE CASE MANAGEMENT 

CONFERENCE AND [PROPOSED] ORDER 

*E-filed 5/6/08*

Case 5:07-cv-04853-HRL Document 21 Filed 05/06/08 Page 1 of 5
 1 

EX PARTE APPLICATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER 

Case No. 5:07-cv-04853-HRL 

#37140 v1

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 

Plaintiffs respectfully request, pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rules 4(m) 

and 6(b)(1)(A), that the Court grant an additional 30 days to serve Defendant Casey Melinda Lentz 

(“Defendant”) with the Summons and Complaint. Plaintiffs also request that the case management 

conference be rescheduled from June 10, 2008, at 1:30 p.m. to July 15, 2008, in order to allow 

adequate time for Plaintiffs to serve Defendant and for Defendant to respond prior to the conference. 

As further explained below, since filing their First Amended Complaint on February 8, 2008, 

Plaintiffs have unsuccessfully attempted personal service on Defendant at three different addresses 

in two states. However, Plaintiffs recently received the results of an investigation indicating that one 

of the addresses at which Plaintiffs previously attempted service is in fact a viable address for 

service of process, and are again attempting service there. Plaintiffs anticipate that a 30 day 

extension of time will be sufficient to effectuate service. In support of their request, Plaintiffs state 

as follows: 

1. Plaintiffs filed their initial Complaint for Copyright Infringement against a 

John Doe defendant on September 20, 2007. In order to determine the Doe defendant’s true identity, 

Plaintiffs filed their Ex Parte Application for Leave to Take Immediate Discovery requesting that the 

Court enter an order allowing Plaintiffs to serve a Rule 45 subpoena on Defendant’s Internet Service 

Provider – here, San Francisco State University (“SFSU”). Declaration of Matthew Franklin Jaksa 

(“Jaksa Decl.”), ¶ 2. 

2. The Court entered an Order for Leave to take Immediate Discovery on 

October 3, 2007, which was served upon SFSU along with a Rule 45 subpoena. On November 16, 

2007, SFSU responded to Plaintiffs’ subpoena, identifying the defendant, Casey Melinda Lentz. 

Jaksa Decl., ¶ 3. 

3. Plaintiffs’ council then sent a letter to Ms. Lentz notifying her of their claims 

for copyright infringement and encouraging her to make contact to attempt to amicably resolve this 

matter. Jaksa Decl., ¶ 4. Despite multiple follow-up attempts to contact Ms. Lentz by telephone and 

e-mail, Plaintiffs were unable to reach Ms. Lentz and resolve the matter. Jaksa Decl., ¶ 5. 

4. Accordingly, on February 8, 2008, Plaintiffs filed the First Amended 

Complaint naming Ms. Lentz, individually, as the defendant. At that time (which is less than 90 

Case 5:07-cv-04853-HRL Document 21 Filed 05/06/08 Page 2 of 5
 2 

EX PARTE APPLICATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER 

Case No. 5:07-cv-04853-HRL 

#37140 v1

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 

days ago), Plaintiffs then engaged a process server to serve the Defendant with process. Jaksa Decl., 

¶ 6. Plaintiffs have thus had less than 120 days within which to serve the First Amended Complaint 

upon Defendant. 

5. The current deadline to effectuate service is May 5, 2008. Jaksa Decl., ¶ 7. 

To date, Plaintiffs’ attempts to serve Defendant have been unsuccessful, despite multiple attempts 

covering three different addresses in two states. 

6. From February 15 through February 28, 2008, Plaintiffs made multiple service 

attempts at 750 Font Boulevard, San Francisco, CA 94132, a student housing complex that Plaintiffs 

believe to have been Defendant’s university address. The office personnel would not provide 

Plaintiffs’ process server access to Defendant’s building, nor would they ultimately accept the 

summons and complaint on behalf of Defendant. After several attempts to serve Defendant, the 

office personnel claimed that Defendant did not reside there. See Declaration of Matthew Franklin 

Jaksa (“Jaksa Decl.”), ¶ 8, Exh. A. 

7. On February 25, 2008, Plaintiffs also attempted to serve Defendant at 4521 

Morro Bay St., Oceanside CA, 92057, which was the address supplied by SFSU in response to 

Plaintiffs’ subpoena and which Plaintiffs believe to be Defendant’s permanent address. Plaintiffs’ 

process server was informed by Defendant’s parents that Defendant does not reside at that address, 

does not receive mail there, and would not provide a current address for Defendant. See Jaksa Decl., 

¶ 9, Exh. B. 

8. Plaintiffs then conducted database research that revealed a possible address 

for service in Denver, Colorado. Plaintiffs attempted service at this address on April 30, 2008. 

However, Plaintiffs’ process server was told that Defendant was not known at this address. See

Jaksa Decl., ¶ 10, Exh. C. 

9. After their February 2008 service attempts proved unsuccessful, Plaintiffs 

contracted for a third-party investigation to determine where Defendant could be found and served 

with process. Plaintiffs did not receive the investigation report until April 23, 2008. The report 

indicates – contrary to what Plaintiffs’ process server had been told during her February 25 service 

attempt – that Defendant indeed receives mail at 4521 Morro Bay St., Oceanside CA, 92057. The 

Case 5:07-cv-04853-HRL Document 21 Filed 05/06/08 Page 3 of 5
 3 

EX PARTE APPLICATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER 

Case No. 5:07-cv-04853-HRL 

#37140 v1

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 

investigation also indicates that the property is owned by the Lentz Family Trust and that Defendant 

reported this address in a 2006 credit related application. See Jaksa Decl., ¶ 11, Exh. D. This was 

also the address supplied by SFSU in response to Plaintiffs’ subpoena, Jaksa Decl. ¶ 9, and is 

presumably the address that Defendant herself supplied to SFSU. 

10. Accordingly, Plaintiffs are again attempting service of process at this address. 

Jaksa Decl. ¶ 12. 

11. The Court has previously granted the following extensions of time in this 

case: While this case was still in the Doe stage, the Court, by its January 3, 2008 Order, granted a 

continuance of the case management conference from January 8 to April 8, 2008. Also while this 

case was in the Doe stage, the Court, by its January 22, 2008 Order granted a 45-day extension of 

time to serve Defendant. After the First Amended Complaint was filed, the Court, by its Order of 

March 10, 2008 granted a further continuance of the case management conference to June 10, 2008 

and a further 63-day extension of time to serve Defendant. Jaksa Decl. ¶ 13. 

12. Plaintiffs submit that good cause exists under Rule 4(m) for an additional 

extension of time to serve Defendant. See Matasareanu v. Williams, 183 F.R.D. 242, 245-46 (C.D. 

Cal. 1998) (stating good cause standard for service extensions); Gambino v. Village of Oakbrook, 

164 F.R.D. 271, 275 (M.D. Fla. 1995) (finding good cause to expand the time limit for service where 

plaintiff made a “reasonable effort to serve defendant”). This Court has discretion to enlarge the 

time to serve even where there is no good cause shown. Henderson v. United States, 517 U.S. 654, 

658 n. 5 (1996). First, unlike a traditional case in which the defendant is known by name and efforts 

to serve can begin immediately after filing a complaint, in this case Plaintiffs first had to obtain 

Defendant’s identity through the subpoena to SFSU. Second, after receiving the subpoena response 

from SFSU, Plaintiffs sent Defendant written notice of their claims, and attempted in good faith to 

contact Defendant and resolve the matter without naming her in the lawsuit or causing further 

litigation costs for both parties. Finally, after filing the First Amended Complaint naming Defendant 

individually, Plaintiffs have made diligent attempts to effectuate service, making multiple service 

attempts spanning three different addresses in two states and contracting for an investigation to 

determine a proper location to effectuate service. 

Case 5:07-cv-04853-HRL Document 21 Filed 05/06/08 Page 4 of 5
 4 

EX PARTE APPLICATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER 

Case No. 5:07-cv-04853-HRL 

#37140 v1

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 

13. Because the copyright infringements here occurred in 2007, the three-year 

limitations period for these claims has not expired. See 17 U.S.C. § 507(b) (2000). There can thus 

be no prejudice to the Defendant from any delay in serving the Complaint. 

Dated: May 2, 2008 HOLME ROBERTS & OWEN LLP 

By: _________/s/ Matthew Franklin Jaksa___

MATTHEW FRANKLIN JAKSA 

Attorney for Plaintiffs 

ORDER

 Good cause having been shown: 

IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rules 4(m) and 

6(b)(1), Plaintiffs’ time to serve Defendant with process be extended to June 4, 2008. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the case management conference currently set for June 

10, 2008, at 1:30 p.m. be continued to July 15, 2008. The parties shall file a Joint Case Management 

Statement by July 8, 2008. 

Dated: ___________________ By: _____________________________ 

 Honorable Howard R. Lloyd 

 United States Magistrate Judge 

5/6/08

Case 5:07-cv-04853-HRL Document 21 Filed 05/06/08 Page 5 of 5