Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_16-cv-00162/USCOURTS-cand-5_16-cv-00162-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 863
Nature of Suit: Social Security - DIWC/DIWW (405(g))
Cause of Action: 42:205 Denial Social Security Benefits

---

1

Case No. 16-CV-00162-LHK 

ORDER VACATING ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AND EXTENDING TIME FOR SERVICE

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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

JONATHAN BENJAMIN FLEMING,

Plaintiff,

v.

CAROLYN COLVIN,

Defendant.

Case No. 16-CV-00162-LHK 

ORDER VACATING ORDER TO SHOW 

CAUSE AND EXTENDING TIME FOR 

SERVICE

Re: Dkt. No. 8

Before the Court is Plaintiff Jonathan Benjamin Fleming’s (“Plaintiff”) response to the 

Court’s May 18, 2016 order to show cause as to why the instant case should not be dismissed for 

failure to prosecute. ECF No. 8. In the May 18, 2016 order to show cause, the Court noted that 

Plaintiff had failed to file proof of timely service on Defendant Carolyn Colvin (“Defendant”). 

ECF No. 7. Having considered Plaintiff’s response, the relevant law, and the record in this case, 

the Court hereby VACATES the order to show cause and the hearing on the order to show cause 

set for June 16, 2016, at 1:30 p.m. The Court declines to dismiss the case for failure to prosecute,

and extends the time for Plaintiff to effect service.

I. BACKGROUND

On January 11, 2016, Plaintiff filed the instant appeal from the Social Security 

Case 5:16-cv-00162-LHK Document 9 Filed 06/13/16 Page 1 of 5
2

Case No. 16-CV-00162-LHK 

ORDER VACATING ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AND EXTENDING TIME FOR SERVICE

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

Northern District of California

Commissioner’s decision denying Plaintiff disability benefits. ECF No. 1. That same day, the 

Court issued a case scheduling order. ECF No. 4. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

4(m), Plaintiff had 90 days from January 11, 2016, or until April 11, 2016, to serve Defendant. 

See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). On May 18, 2016, after Plaintiff failed to file a proof of service, the 

Court issued an order to show cause as to why the case should not be dismissed for failure to 

prosecute. ECF No. 7. 

Plaintiff responded to the Court’s order to show cause on May 19, 2016. ECF No. 8. In a 

sworn declaration, Plaintiff’s counsel informed the Court that on May 12, 2016, Plaintiff served 

the complaint, summons, and case scheduling order by certified mail on the Social Security 

Administration, the Attorney General of the United States, and the civil-process clerk at the U.S. 

Attorney’s Office. Id. ¶¶ 2–3. Plaintiff’s counsel acknowledges that service was untimely, but 

avers that counsel was unaware of a December 1, 2015 change to the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure that reduced the time for service from 120 days to 90 days. According to Plaintiff’s 

counsel, “[c]ounsel inadvertently, but in good faith . . . calendared the 120 days pursuant to what 

she believed to be FRCP Rule 4m.” Id. ¶ 5. 

II. LEGAL STANDARD

Prior to December 1, 2015, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) provided a plaintiff with 

a “[t]ime [l]imit for [s]ervice” of 120 days after the filing of the complaint. Since December 1, 

2015, Rule 4(m) has provided a 90 day time limit: “If a defendant is not served within 90 days 

after the complaint is filed, the court—on motion or on its own after notice to the plaintiff—must 

dismiss the action without prejudice against that defendant or order that service be made within a 

specified time. But if the plaintiff shows good cause for the failure, the court must extend the time 

for service for an appropriate period.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m).

The Court must extend the time for service beyond 90 days if Plaintiff shows good cause. 

Id. In the Ninth Circuit, “[a]t a minimum, ‘good cause’ means excusable neglect.” In re Sheehan, 

253 F.3d 507, 512 (9th Cir. 2001). “[G]ood cause generally means that service has been 

attempted but not completed, that plaintiff was confused about the requirements of service, or that 

Case 5:16-cv-00162-LHK Document 9 Filed 06/13/16 Page 2 of 5
3

Case No. 16-CV-00162-LHK 

ORDER VACATING ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AND EXTENDING TIME FOR SERVICE

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

Northern District of California

plaintiff was prevented from serving defendants by factors beyond his control.” Chemehuevi 

Indian Tribe v. Wilson, 181 F.R.D. 438, 440 (N.D. Cal. 1998) (internal quotation marks omitted).

However, an attorney’s ignorance of the rules, oversight, inadvertence, or mistake does not rise to 

the level of excusable neglect. See Townsel v. Cty. of Contra Costa, 820 F.2d 319, 320 (9th Cir.

1987) (ignorance of the time of service under Rule 4(j)—the predecessor to Rule 4(m)—was not 

excusable neglect); Wei v. Hawaii, 763 F.2d 370, 372 (9th Cir. 1985) (no good cause to extend 

time to serve opposing party where counsel inadvertently failed to calendar the 120 day deadline); 

see also Kyle v. Campbell Soup Co., 28 F.3d 928, 930–31 (9th Cir. 1994) (attorney’s mistake of 

law in interpreting the time to file a post-trial motion did not constitute excusable neglect under 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b)).

Absent good cause, courts have discretion “to extend the time for service or to dismiss the 

action without prejudice.” In re Sheehan, 253 F.3d at 513. The Ninth Circuit has not set forth 

specific factors to consider in making discretionary determinations under Rule 4(m). Id.

However, the Ninth Circuit has noted that “a district court may consider factors like a statute of 

limitations bar, prejudice to the defendant, actual notice of a lawsuit, and eventual service.” Efaw 

v. Williams, 473 F.3d 1038, 1041 (9th Cir. 2007) (internal quotation marks omitted). An extension 

of time for service may be retroactive. Wright v. City of Santa Cruz, 2014 WL 3058470, at *7 

(N.D. Cal. July 3, 2014). 

III. DISCUSSION

Plaintiff’s counsel acknowledges that service of Defendant was untimely but contends that 

good cause exists to extend the time for service. Plaintiff’s counsel asserts that counsel was 

unaware of the December 1, 2015 reduction in the time for service from 120 days to 90 days, and 

that “[c]ounsel inadvertently, but in good faith . . . calendared the 120 days pursuant to what she 

believed to be FRCP Rule 4m.” ECF No. 8. 

Plaintiff’s counsel’s inadvertence and ignorance of the December 1, 2015 change in Rule 

4(m) does not rise to the level of excusable neglect. See Townsel, 820 F.2d at 320 (finding that 

ignorance of the time of service was not excusable neglect); Wei, 763 F.2d at 372 (concluding that 

Case 5:16-cv-00162-LHK Document 9 Filed 06/13/16 Page 3 of 5
4

Case No. 16-CV-00162-LHK 

ORDER VACATING ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AND EXTENDING TIME FOR SERVICE

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

Northern District of California

no good cause existed where counsel inadvertently failed to calendar the 120 day deadline). 

Accordingly, good cause does not exist to extend the time for service. See Townsel, 820 F.2d at

320; Wei, 763 F.2d at 372. In addition, the Court notes that 120 days from January 11, 2016, the 

date on which Plaintiff filed the complaint, would be May 10, 2016. Plaintiff did not effect 

service until two days later, on May 12, 2016. ECF No. 8. Thus, service of Defendant would not 

have been timely under the pre-December 1, 2015 version of Rule 4(m). 

Although Plaintiff has not established good cause, the Court exercises its broad discretion 

to grant an extension of the time for service. As noted above, in exercising this discretion “a 

district court may consider factors like a statute of limitations bar, prejudice to the defendant, 

actual notice of a lawsuit, and eventual service.” Efaw, 473 F.3d at 1041. Here, Plaintiff effected

service on Defendant on May 12, 2016. See ECF No. 8. Although service on Defendant was 

untimely, Plaintiff’s service by certified mail appears to be otherwise proper. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 

4(i) (providing that a party may serve the United States by sending a copy of the summons and 

complaint by certified mail to designated individuals). In addition, on May 17, 2016, Defendant 

filed a form indicating that Defendant consents to the jurisdiction of a magistrate judge. ECF No. 

6. It is thus apparent that Defendant has actual notice of the lawsuit. 

In addition, no prejudice to Defendant is evident from the delay in service. The length of 

delay was only thirty-two days, and there is no evidence of bad faith on the part of Plaintiff. See 

Rodriguez v. Lehigh Sw. Cement Co., 2015 WL 1325528, at *8 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 24, 2015) 

(extending time for service when three months had passed after the time for service under Rule 

4(m)). Moreover, according to Plaintiff, Plaintiff’s initial application for social security benefits 

was filed on April 23, 2012 and has been appealed through multiple levels of the administrative

process. ECF Nos. 1, 8. The instant case will be determined based on the administrative record. 

Accordingly, the issues raised by the instant case are familiar to Defendant. 

Lastly, it appears that prejudice to Plaintiff is likely if the time for service is not extended. 

Federal law requires that any appeal of a final decision of the Social Security Commissioner be 

commenced in federal district court within 60 days of the final decision. 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). 

Case 5:16-cv-00162-LHK Document 9 Filed 06/13/16 Page 4 of 5
5

Case No. 16-CV-00162-LHK 

ORDER VACATING ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AND EXTENDING TIME FOR SERVICE

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

Northern District of California

According to Plaintiff, the final decision of the Social Security Commissioner in this case was 

rendered on November 5, 2015. See ECF No. 8, ¶ 8. Thus, were the Court to dismiss the instant

case for untimely service, any attempt to re-file would be time-barred. This type of prejudice to 

Plaintiff supports extending the time for service. See United States v. 2,164 Watches, More or 

Less Bearing a Registered Trademark of Guess?, Inc., 366 F.3d 767, 773 (9th Cir. 2004) (noting 

that the running of the statute of limitations supports extending time for service); Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 

Advisory Committee Notes (“Relief [under Rule 4(m)] may be justified, for example, if the 

applicable statute of limitations would bar the refiled action . . .”).

In sum, Plaintiff’s eventual service, Defendant’s actual notice of the lawsuit, the lack of 

prejudice to Defendant, and the potential for prejudice to Plaintiff favor extending the time for 

service. In light of the foregoing, the Court exercises its discretion to retroactively extend the 

deadline for service to May 12, 2016. Thus, the Court vacates the order to show cause. 

By June 16, 2016, Plaintiff shall file a consent or declination to proceed before a 

magistrate judge. In addition, the parties are directed to follow the Court’s January 11, 2016

scheduling order. ECF No. 4. Pursuant to the January 11, 2016 order, Defendant shall serve and 

file an answer together with a certified copy of the transcript of the administrative record within 

ninety days of receipt of service of the summons and complaint. Plaintiff shall serve and file a 

motion for summary judgment or for remand within thirty days of service of Defendant’s answer. 

Defendant shall serve and file any opposition or counter-motion within thirty days of service of 

Plaintiff’s motion. Plaintiff may serve and file a reply within fourteen days of service of 

Defendant’s opposition or counter-motion.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 13, 2016

______________________________________

LUCY H. KOH

United States District Judge

Case 5:16-cv-00162-LHK Document 9 Filed 06/13/16 Page 5 of 5