Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-00362/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-00362-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 290
Nature of Suit: Other Real Property Actions
Cause of Action: 42:1981 Civil Rights

---

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 Plaintiff’s prior requests for extensions of time were filed on June 26, 2007, doc.

no. 39; and on July 18, 2007, doc. no. 45. 

07cv362

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

VIRGINIA REEDER,

Plaintiff,

v.

JOHN KNAPIK dba K/MONT

CONSTRUCTION, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No. 07-CV-362-L(LSP)

ORDER GRANTING EX PARTE

MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF

TIME TO SERVE AMENDED

COMPLAINT [doc. #55]

On September 4, 2007, plaintiff, appearing pro se, filed her third request1

 for an extension

of time in which to effectuate service of process on the remaining unserved defendants. Plaintiff

asks that she be permitted until September 26, 2007 in which to serve these defendants. Under

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m), plaintiff was required to effectuate service of process no

later than June 26, 2007. But the Court granted both of plaintiff’s requests for extensions of

time in which to effectuate service of process. (See Orders filed June 26, 2007 [doc. #40] and

July 18, 2007 [doc. #46]). The Court noted in its July 18, 2007 Order that granted plaintiff an

additional month in which to serve defendants, “[p]laintiff has made no showing that [the]

almost two additional months [requested would] provide her with the addresses of the unserved

defendants.” Id. at 2. Nevertheless, the Court granted plaintiff an additional month to serve the

Case 3:07-cv-00362-L-LSP Document 57 Filed 09/24/07 Page 1 of 5
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

2 Although plaintiff’s certificate of service states that she mailed her request for an

extension of time to the “City of San Diego Attorney” and to Billie Moore on August 24, 2007,

the certificate of service does not indicate the manner or the date plaintiff filed her ex parte

application for an extension of time with the Clerk of the Court. Plaintiff’s ex parte application

was received by the Clerk of the Court on September 4, 2007. In the absence of any verification

that plaintiff mailed her ex parte application to the Court earlier than September 4, 2007 or hand

delivered her application to the Clerk of the Court prior to September 4, 2007, the Court must

accept September 4, 2007 as the date plaintiff filed her ex parte application with the Court. 

3 Plaintiff has served defendants Billie Moore, the City of San Diego Building

Permits Inspection Office, and City of San Diego Building Inspector Monty Counsell.

4 The Court notes that there are a significant number of ways in which to obtain

mailing addresses for individuals and business entities. 

5 Plaintiff states that she had surgery on August 30, 2007, which is after the time

previously set by the Court for effectuating service of process. Therefore, the surgery does not

provide a reason for plaintiff’s failure to act prior to the expiration of the time for service and

consequently, for requesting a further extension of time.

2 07cv362

remaining defendants, i.e., not later than August 27, 2007. Id. at 5. 

Plaintiff’s latest request for an extension of time was filed on September 4, 2007, a week

after service of process was required to be effectuated under the earlier Order granting plaintiff a

second extension of time.2

 The Court notes that plaintiff sought her two previous extensions of

time prior to the time service was to be effectuated.

Discussion

In the present request for a further extension of time, plaintiff reiterates that she has been

unable to effectuate service of process on defendants Dennis Cobbrowsk, John Costello, Bob

McCraw, Alex LeRoux, Chris Jones, Several Unknown Named Labors of John Knapik dba

K/Mont Construction Company, and Ace Home Inspection Services Agent Donald L. Walker.3

Plaintiff states that she has diligently acted to have Willie James Washington (“Washington”)

serve the amended complaint and summons on these defendants. But plaintiff does not indicate

what steps she and/or Washington have taken4

 other than to assert that she has made “diligent

attempts to locate and serve all remaining defendants” and that “on multiple ocassions [sic] spent

12 hours staked outside defendant John Knapik’s place of last known residency . . . .” (Ex parte

application at 2). Nor does plaintiff suggest a reason for the filing of her ex parte application

after the time had run for service of process.5

 

Case 3:07-cv-00362-L-LSP Document 57 Filed 09/24/07 Page 2 of 5
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

3 07cv362

1. Rule 6(b) and excusable neglect

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b) grants district courts discretion to enlarge time

periods set by the rules. Rule 6(b) provides in pertinent part:

(b) Enlargement. When by these rules or by a notice given thereunder or by order

of court an act is required or allowed to be done at or within a specified time, the

court for cause shown may at any time in its discretion (1) with or without motion

or notice order the period enlarged if request therefor is made before the expiration

of the period originally prescribed or as extended by a previous order, or (2) upon

motion made after the expiration of the specified period permit the act to be

done where the failure to act was the result of excusable neglect; . . . .

FED. R. CIV. P. 6(b)(2)(emphasis added).

In other words, the Court may grant a request for an extension of time even if it is made

after the expiration of the time period to be enlarged, provided the delay was caused by

excusable neglect and the request is made by motion. FED. R. CIV. P. 6(b)(2). "Excusable

neglect" covers negligence on the part of counsel or a pro se party. See Pincay v. Andrews, 389

F.3d 853, 856 (9th Cir. 2004) (en banc). The determination of whether neglect is excusable is an

equitable one that depends on at least four factors:

(1) the danger of prejudice to the non-moving party, (2) the length of delay and its

potential impact on judicial proceedings, (3) the reason for the delay, including whether it

was within the reasonable control of the movant, and (4) whether the moving party’s

conduct was in good faith.

Pincay, 389 F.3d at 855 (citing Pioneer Investment Services Company v. Brunswick Associates,

507 U.S. 380, 395 (1993)). The district court’s discretion in this regard is broad. See Pincay,

389 F.3d at 859. 

As the moving party here, plaintiff has not addressed any of these factors and has

provided no reason for filing her ex parte application after the twice-extended time for service of

process had expired. Nevertheless, the Court reviews and balances the Pincay factors. 

The remaining named defendants have not been served within the 120-day period

provided by Rule 4 or within the 60 day extensions the Court has granted plaintiffs. The Court

does not have jurisdiction over the unserved defendants – a necessary prerequisite to moving

forward with the litigation against these defendants. Moreover, because these defendants have

not been served, they are unaware of plaintiff’s requests and they have no opportunity to respond

Case 3:07-cv-00362-L-LSP Document 57 Filed 09/24/07 Page 3 of 5
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

4 07cv362

to plaintiff’s motions. Nevertheless, if served with the amended complaint, a defendant cannot

claim prejudice merely from having to defend a case on its merits. But both the currently served

and the unserved defendants will likely suffer prejudice when the time for service of process is

extended beyond a reasonable period. When a case does not get served promptly – within the

120 days provided under the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure – and when plaintiff fails to

prosecute her action properly and timely, there is a distinct possibility of tangible harm to

defendants, i.e., prejudice, such as loss of evidence or increased difficulties of discovery. As

noted above, plaintiff has made no showing that another extension of time will assist her in

locating and serving defendants. Similarly, plaintiff has not provided a specific plan to ensure

service of process in a prompt fashion. Notwithstanding the above, plaintiff’s delay in seeking

the third extension of time was not great and the Court notes plaintiff filed her earlier

applications for extensions of time prior to expiration of the time the Court had set for service.

Although plaintiff contends that she has made reasonable efforts to serve defendants, 

plaintiff has not been prevented from properly effecting service of process by factors beyond her

control. As noted above, there are many methods of obtaining information concerning the

addresses of defendants. The Court is aware that plaintiff is appearing pro se and litigating a

case without benefit of counsel may present some challenges. Accordingly, the Court does not

find bad faith on the part of plaintiff with respect to her request for a third extension of time.

Nevertheless, plaintiff must comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Civil

Local Rules which includes effectuating service of process in a proper and timely manner on

each individual named in the complaint.

Having considered all the factors set forth above, the Court will grant plaintiff a final

extension of the time for service to be effectuated; however, no further extensions of time in

which to serve the remaining defendants will be granted. Moreover, this Order places plaintiff

on notice that her complaint will be dismissed without prejudice as to the unserved defendants if

service is not effectuated by October 10, 2007. 

/ / /

/ / /

Case 3:07-cv-00362-L-LSP Document 57 Filed 09/24/07 Page 4 of 5
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

5 07cv362

2. Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, plaintiff’s third request for an extension of time is GRANTED;

however, NO FURTHER EXTENSIONS OF TIME WILL BE GRANTED. Any remaining

named defendants shall be properly served no later than OCTOBER 10, 2007. FAILURE TO

PROPERLY SERVE A NAMED DEFENDANT ON OR BEFORE OCTOBER 10, 2007

SHALL RESULT IN DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE OF THE UNSERVED

DEFENDANT(S). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: September 24, 2007

M. James Lorenz

United States District Court Judge

COPY TO: 

HON. LEO S. PAPAS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

ALL PARTIES/COUNSEL

Case 3:07-cv-00362-L-LSP Document 57 Filed 09/24/07 Page 5 of 5