Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-00548/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-00548-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983cv Civil Rights Act - Civil Action for Deprivation of Rights

---

1

14-CV-548 JLS (BGS)

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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LYCURGAN, INC., a California 

corporation, d/b/a ARES ARMOR,

Plaintiff,

v.

EARL GRIFFITH, an individual,

UNKNOWN NAMED TECHNOLOGIST, 

an individual, UNKNOWN NAMED 

AGENTS I-VII, individuals, and DOES IX, in their individual capacities,

Defendants.

Case No.: 14-CV-548 JLS (BGS)

ORDER DENYING EX PARTE

MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF 

TIME TO SERVE UNKNOWN 

NAMED DEFENDANTS

(ECF No. 158)

Presently before the Court is Plaintiff Lycurgan Inc.’s Motion for Extension of 

Time to Serve the Unknown Named Defendants Pursuant to F.R.C.P. 4(m). (“MTN,” 

ECF No. 158.) Plaintiff requests an additional sixty days in which to serve the Unknown 

Named Defendants. (Id. at 7.) The United States filed an Opposition, (“Opp’n,” ECF 

No. 159), to the Motion.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) requires defendants to be served within 90 

days after the complaint is filed. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). A court must extend the time for 

service if a plaintiff shows good cause. Id. If plaintiff cannot show good cause then a 

court still has discretion to extend the time for service. In re Sheehan, 253 F.3d 507, 513 

Case 3:14-cv-00548-JLS-KSC Document 160 Filed 01/08/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 4
2

14-CV-548 JLS (BGS)

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

(9th Cir. 2001). At a minimum, good cause means “excusable neglect.” Id. at 512. 

Here, Plaintiff contends that good cause exists and, if it does not, the Court should 

exercise its discretion to grant an extension of time to serve certain Defendants. (MTN

2.)

The Court briefly recounts the most recent litigation in this case. On May 30, 

2017, the United States, on behalf of Unknown Named Defendants, moved to dismiss 

Plaintiff’s Complaint for failing to serve the Unknown Named Defendants within the 

original time for service, (ECF No. 126). This Court denied Defendants’ Motion to 

Dismiss on October 18, 2017 and granted Plaintiff an additional ninety (90) days in 

which to serve the Unknown Named Defendants. (ECF No. 153.) Plaintiff filed a 

motion to take limited, immediate discovery on the same day the Order was published, 

October 18th. (ECF No. 154.) Plaintiff states that from October 18, 2017 to November 

17, 2017 the parties discussed the possibility of either settling the case or the Government 

voluntarily providing the names of the individual Defendants. (MTN 3.) In reliance on 

the discussions with the Government, Plaintiff withdrew its motion to take discovery on 

October 19, 2017, one day after it was filed. (ECF No. 155.)

On November 17, 2017, counsel for both parties met and conferred in person. 

(MTN 4.) Counsel for the United States, Mr. Butcher, proposed a joint motion where the 

names of the individual defendants would be disclosed, but kept under seal. (Id.) 

Plaintiff’s counsel rejected this proposal. (Id.) While the discussions were ongoing, 

Plaintiff’s counsel represents that he was decisively engaged in various trials, hearings, 

and brief writing on other cases. (Id.)

Plaintiff’s counsel again reached out to the Government on December 20, 2017. 

(Id.) Mr. Butcher responded that the Government’s position remained the same as it was 

on the November 17th meeting. (Id.) On December 22, 2017, Plaintiff re-filed its 

motion for early discovery. (ECF No. 157.) On these facts, Plaintiff believes it will not 

be able to prosecute its motion and serve Defendants by the deadline for service, January 

16, 2018. (MTN 6.)

Case 3:14-cv-00548-JLS-KSC Document 160 Filed 01/08/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 4
3

14-CV-548 JLS (BGS)

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

Plaintiff’s request is not operating on a blank slate. In its Prior Order, the Court 

found that good cause to extend time for service did not exist because Plaintiff’s actions 

or omissions failed to demonstrate excusable neglect. (See ECF No. 153, at 8–11.) 

Plaintiff waited nearly two years to pursue its previous early discovery request. (Id. at 9; 

see also ECF No. 117.) Instead, the Court exercised its discretion to extend Plaintiff’s 

time for service. In doing so, the Court stated that it “will not, barring exceptional 

circumstances, be amenable to granting further discretion to Plaintiff.” (ECF No. 153, at 

13–14.)

Plaintiff’s situation does not rise to any exceptional circumstances. In its prior 

order, the Court cited with approval the Ninth Circuit’s standard for serving defendants of 

unknown identity: “the plaintiff should be given an opportunity through discovery to 

identify the unknown defendants, unless it is clear that discovery would not uncover the 

identities, or that the complaint would be dismissed on other grounds.” (Id. at 9 (quoting 

Wakefield v. Thompson, 177 F.3d 1160, 1163 (9th Cir. 1990)).) Plaintiff initially pursued 

its discovery motion until it voluntarily withdrew the motion at the request of the 

Government. The Court cannot fault Plaintiff for engaging in negotiations with the 

Government; indeed, this fulfills the mandate for a speedy resolution to litigation. See

Fed. R. Civ. P. 1. 

That said, the Court made it eminently clear that it expected Plaintiff to diligently 

execute service within the time granted by the Court. Furthermore, the Court granted 

Plaintiff ninety days to complete service—this was above and beyond the original time to 

complete service as well as several intervening years where Plaintiff did not attempt early 

discovery. Plaintiff, instead, pursued litigation in other cases and unilaterally rejected an 

offer by the Government that would potentially allow this litigation to move forward to 

the merits of Plaintiff’s claim. 

/ / /

/ / /

Case 3:14-cv-00548-JLS-KSC Document 160 Filed 01/08/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 4
4

14-CV-548 JLS (BGS)

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

The Court finds that Plaintiff’s conduct since October 18, 2017 does not present 

good cause and the Court declines to exercise its discretion. Therefore, the Court 

DENIES Plaintiff’s Ex Parte Motion for Extension of Time to Serve Unknown Named 

Defendants, (ECF No. 158).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 8, 2018

Case 3:14-cv-00548-JLS-KSC Document 160 Filed 01/08/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 4