Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-02094/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-02094-0/pdf.json

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICROSOFT CORPORATION,

Plaintiff,

v.

BC TECH GEAR, and

JASON W. HAGEN,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:09cv2094 AWI SKO

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING

IN PART PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR

EXTENSION OF TIME TO SERVE AMENDED

COMPLAINT

This matter is before the Court upon Plaintiff’s status report (Doc. 12), which the Court

construes as a motion for an extension of time in which to serve the amended complaint upon

Defendants. On December 1, 2009, Plaintiff filed a complaint against Defendant BC Tech Gear,

alleging, inter alia, copyright and trademark infringement. (Doc. 1.) On December 2, 2009, the

Court set the initial scheduling conference for March 2, 2010. (Doc. 4.) Plaintiff amended its

complaint on February 16, 2010, to include Jason W. Hagen as a defendant doing business as BC

Tech Gear. (Doc. 5.)

On February23, 2010, Plaintiff filed a status report requesting that the scheduling conference

“be continued thirty days to allow time for Mr. Hagen to be served with the First Amended

Complaint.” (Doc. 7 at 2.) The Court granted Plaintiff’s request and continued the scheduling

Case 1:09-cv-02094-AWI-SKO Document 13 Filed 05/06/10 Page 1 of 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

conference to May 10, 2010. (Doc. 8.) The Court reassigned this matter to the undersigned on April

15, 2010. (Doc. 9.) On April 21, 2010, the Court reset the scheduling conference to May 10, 2010. 

(Doc. 10.)

Plaintiff failed to file a joint scheduling report seven (7) days before the May 10, 2010,

scheduling conference pursuant to the Court’s Scheduling Conference Order under Fed. R. Civ. P.

16 and Local Rule 240. The Court, therefore, ordered Plaintiff to file a status report no later than

May 5, 2010, regarding the service of the complaint and directed Plaintiff to appear telephonically

on May 10, 2010. (Doc. 11.) On May 5, 2010, Plaintiff filed a status report indicating that it “has

diligently attempted to have Mr. Hagen served with the Complaint,” as it “is unaware of Mr. Hagen’s

current location and has requested the assistance of a private investigator in Washington in order to

locate him for service.” (Doc. 12 at 2.) Plaintiff, therefore, “requests an additional 45 days to allow

time for it to locate Mr. Hagen and serve him with the First Amended Complaint.” (Doc. 12 at 2.) 

As discussed more fully below, Plaintiff’s request is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.

DISCUSSION

Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides:

If a defendant is not served within 120 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 orderthat 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). “Good cause to avoid dismissal may be demonstrated by establishing, at

minimum, excusable neglect.” Lemoge v. United States, 587 F.3d 1188, 1198 n.3 (9th Cir. 2009). 

In order to establish good cause, a plaintiff may be required to show that “(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.” Id. Neither lack of prejudice by

itself nor inadvertence of counsel is sufficient to establish good cause, however. United States v.

2,164 Watches, 366 F.3d 767, 773 n.2 (9th Cir. 2004); Wei v. State of Hawaii, 763 F.2d 370, 372 (9th

Cir. 1985) (per curiam).

Even absent good cause, Rule 4(m) permits the Court to grant an extension of time. Efaw

v. Williams, 473 F.3d 1038, 1040 (9th Cir. 2007). Although district courts have broad discretion to

2

Case 1:09-cv-02094-AWI-SKO Document 13 Filed 05/06/10 Page 2 of 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

extend time for service under Rule 4(m), however, that discretion is not limitless. Id. at 1041. 

Factors that the Court may consider in exercising its discretion include a statute of limitations bar,

prejudice to the defendant, actual notice of a lawsuit, and eventual service. Id. 

The facts of this case counsel in favor of granting Plaintiff additional time in which to serve

Defendants. Since Plaintiff’s filing of its initial complaint in December 2009, Plaintiff had “been

working diligently to identify the owner of BC Tech Gear” and attempted service of the complaint

at an address in Fresno, California, identified in a notice of state tax lien recorded in Fresno County. 

(Doc. 7 at 1-2.) Plaintiff determined that no entities or persons related to BC Tech Gear were located 

at that address, however. (Doc. 7 at 2.) Plaintiff subsequently identified Jason W. Hagen in

Washington as doing business as BC Tech Gear and amended it complaint to include Mr. Hagen as

a defendant. 

According to Plaintiff, Mr. Hagen remains ensconced somewhere in Washington. Although

Plaintiff has located the address of Mr. Hagen’s former business, which is apparently a former

residence of his parents, Plaintiff has heretofore been unable to locate him in order to serve the

amended complaint. Moreover, despite Plaintiff’s earlier notice to Defendants in 2007 and 2009 of

Defendants’ alleged distribution of counterfeitMicrosoft software, Defendants maystill be engaging

in infringing conduct. (Doc. 5 ¶¶ 20, 24; Doc. 12 at 2.)

In light of the foregoing, delay in this case is the result of neither inadvertence nor neglect

by Plaintiff’s counsel. Nor is the delay extraordinary. Cf. Efaw, 473 F.3d at 1041 (holding that

plaintiff’s seven-year delayin serving defendant was extraordinary). Rather, Plaintiff has reasonably

explained its failure up to this point to serve Defendants. Cf. id. (“Plaintiff offered no reasonable

explanation for his seven-year failure to serve Defendant. There was no evidence that Defendant

attempted to evade service, that she left the state, or that she took any other action that contributed

to Plaintiff’s delay.”) Although there is no evidence in the record that Defendants knew that Plaintiff

had filed its amended complaint, Plaintiff had previously notified Defendants of their allegedly

infringing conduct. Furthermore, the Court finds that Defendants would suffer little, if any prejudice

at this time if the Court granted Plaintiff an extension of time. On the other hand, Plaintiff would

be severely prejudiced if its amended complaint were dismissed. Under these circumstances,

3

Case 1:09-cv-02094-AWI-SKO Document 13 Filed 05/06/10 Page 3 of 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

therefore, good cause exists under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m) to extend the time for Plaintiff to serve the

amended complaint upon Defendants.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, the Court finds that good cause exists to extend the time for

Plaintiff to serve the amended complaint. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that

1) The telephonic status conference set for May 10, 2010, at 9:30 a.m. is VACATED;

2) Plaintiff’s request for an extension of time in which to serve the amended complaint

is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED in PART;

3) Plaintiff shall serve the amended complaint upon Defendants no later than June10,

2010; and

4) The Initial SchedulingConference is reset to June 24, 2010, at 9:15 a.m. The parties 

are reminded that a joint scheduling conference report must be filed with the Court 

seven (7) days prior to the June 24, 2010 scheduling conference. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 6, 2010 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto 

ie14hj UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

4

Case 1:09-cv-02094-AWI-SKO Document 13 Filed 05/06/10 Page 4 of 4