Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cv-01904/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cv-01904-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Tort/Non-Motor Vehicle

---

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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

MICHAEL C. BAUERLEIN, surviving

natural father of BROOKE LYNNE

BAUERLEIN, deceased minor,

individually and on behalf of all wrongful

death beneficiaries, including SHANNON

BAUERLEIN, surviving mother of

BROOKE LYNNE BAUERLEIN,

deceased minor; and PATRICIA JOELEE

BAUERLEIN, through MICHEAL C.

BAUERLEIN, her natural parent and

next friend,

Plaintiffs,

v.

EQUITY RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES

MANAGEMENT CORPORATION, an

Illinois Corporation d/b/a LA

MARIPOSA; LOTUS & WINDOWARE,

INC., a California Corporation; JUMBO

SURPLUS CORPORATION, a

Taiwanese Corporation; JOHN and JANE

DOES I-X; and BLACK and WHITE

CORPORATIONS/ PARTNERSHIPS IX,

Defendants.

NO. CV04-1904-PHX-SMM

ORDER

Pending before the Court is Plaintiffs' Second Motion for Extension of Time to

Serve Defendant Jumbo Surplus Corporation with Complaint ("Motion to Extend") (Doc.

Case 2:04-cv-01904-SMM Document 127 Filed 07/26/06 Page 1 of 7
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

-2-

No. 117), Defendants' (Equity Residential Properties Management Corp. and Lotus &

Windoware, Inc.) Response to Plaintiffs' Motion to Extend (Docs. No. 118, 120), and

Plaintiffs' Reply to Defendants' Response (Doc. No. 121). Considering the arguments

made in the foregoing documents, the Court issues the following Order.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

This an action for the alleged wrongful death of Brooke Lynne Bauerlein. Plaintiffs

allege that defendant Equity Residential Properties Management Corporation ("Equity")

owned, operated, or managed apartments, including an apartment rented to Plaintiffs where

Brooke Lynne Bauerlein suffered fatal injuries. Plaintiffs further allege that Equity installed

and/or allowed to be installed the mini-blind/corded window covering product in the

apartment Plaintiffs rented. Defendants Lotus & Windoware, Inc. ("Lotus") and Jumbo

Surplus Corporation ("Jumbo") allegedly manufactured and/or distributed the mini-blind

containing the cord which wrapped around Brooke's neck and strangled her. 

Upon information and belief, Plaintiffs allege that Jumbo is located in Taiwan. On

June 22, 2005, the Court granted Plaintiffs an extension of time to serve Defendant Jumbo

with the Complaint until September 6, 2006 (Doc. No. 45). Because Defendant Jumbo is

a foreign corporation, Plaintiffs are attempting service of process through letters rogatory

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(f)(2)(B). Plaintiffs filed several Motions with

the Court requesting the issuance of letters rogatory, the first of which was made on October

20, 2005. (Docs. No. 75, 81, 87). On April 14, 2006, the Court granted Plaintiffs' Motion

Case 2:04-cv-01904-SMM Document 127 Filed 07/26/06 Page 2 of 7
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

-3-

for Issuance of Letters Rogatory (Doc. No. 89). On May 24, 2006, the Court signed the

Letters Rogatory, and then forwarded the documents to the State Department (Doc. No. 117

at 3). On June 27, 2006, Plaintiffs filed a second Motion to Extend, requesting that the

Court extend the deadline for service by six months (Doc. No. 117). Defendant Equity filed

a Response to Plaintiffs' Motion to Extend on July 7, 2006 (Doc. No. 118). On July, 12,

2006, Defendant Lotus joined in Defendant Equity's Response. In their Response, Equity

and Lotus do not oppose extending the deadline to serve Jumbo (doc. No. 118 at 1),

however, they argue that if an extension is granted, the proceedings should be stayed until

Jumbo is served (Doc. No 118 at 2). Plaintiffs filed a Reply to Defendants’ Response on

July, 14. 2006 (Doc. No. 121).

DISCUSSION

I. Plaintiff's Motion to Extend

In deciding whether to extend the prescribed time period for service of a summons

and complaint, a court must extend the time period upon a showing of good cause. In re

Sheehan, 253 F.3d 507, 513 (9th Cir. 2001); Matasareanu v. Williams, 138 F.R.D. 242,

245-46 (C.D. Cal. 1998) (interpreting the good cause provision of Rule 4(m)). Good

cause has been defined, "at a minimum, as 'excusable neglect.'" Electrical Speciality Co.

v. Road and Ranch Supply, Inc., 967 F.2d 309, 312 (9th Cir. 1992) (applying this

definition to Rule 4(m)'s predecessor, Rule 4(j)) (citation omitted). Courts determine

whether good cause exists "on a case by case basis." In re Sheehan, 253 F.3d at 512.

Case 2:04-cv-01904-SMM Document 127 Filed 07/26/06 Page 3 of 7
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

1

 Plaintiffs' Motion to Extend (Doc. No. 117) was filed on June 27, 2006, well in

advance of the September 6, 2006 deadline (Doc. No. 45).

-4-

In this case, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have established good cause to extend

the deadline previously granted by the Court to complete service on Defendant Jumbo. 

First, Plaintiffs have diligently sought to effect service since October 20, 2005 when they

filed their first request for issuance of letters rogatory (Doc. No. 75) and have provided

the Court with a timely Motion to Extend.1

 Second, despite Defendants' assertions to the

contrary, granting an extension will not result in prejudice to the Defendants. Equity and

Lotus cryptically assert that if an extension is granted without an accompanying stay,

they will be "forced to permit Jumbo . . . to duplicate their discovery efforts, or Jumbo . . 

. will be prejudiced preparing for trial" (Doc. No. 118). Defendants fail to explain how

staying the proceeding will mitigate duplicative discovery, and, in the absence of

explanation from Defendants, the Court will not speculate about the possible meanings of

this statement. Further, the Court does not find that Jumbo will be prejudiced preparing

for trial in the absence of a stay. The Court has the power to extend discovery upon

proper proof and request pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16. The Court

finds it is more appropriate to address whether such an extension of the discovery period

is warranted if and when Jumbo actively enters the litigation. Finally, although

Defendants will not be prejudiced by this extension of time, Plaintiffs would be severely

prejudiced if they were not permitted to effect a form of service necessary in order to

make any resulting judgment enforceable in both the United States and Taiwan. See In

Case 2:04-cv-01904-SMM Document 127 Filed 07/26/06 Page 4 of 7
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

-5-

re Sheehan, 253 F.3d at 512 (To constitute "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."') (citation omitted). Thus, Plaintiffs' Motion to Extend for

six months will be granted. 

II. Defendants' Request to Stay Proceedings

The United States Supreme Court recognized long ago that "the power to stay

proceedings is incidental to the power inherent in every court to control the disposition of

the causes on its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for

litigants. How this can best be done calls for the exercise of judgment, which must

weigh competing interests and maintain an even balance." See Landis v. North

American Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254-55 (1936); see also CMAX, Inc. v. Hall, 300 F.2d 265,

268 (9th Cir. 1962) ("A district court has inherent power to control the disposition of the

causes on its docket in a manner which will promote economy of time and effort for

itself, for counsel, and for litigants. The exertion of this power calls for the exercise of a

sound discretion."). In determining whether to issue a stay, the Ninth Circuit instructs a

district court to weigh competing interests:

Among these competing interest are the possible damage

which may result from the granting of a stay, the hardship or

inequity which a party may suffer in being required to go

forward, and the orderly course of justice measured in terms

of the simplifying or complicating of issues, proof, and

question of law which could be expected to result from a

Case 2:04-cv-01904-SMM Document 127 Filed 07/26/06 Page 5 of 7
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

-6-

stay.

CMAX, Inc., 300 F.2d at 268 (citing Landis, 299 U.S. at 254-55). The burden is on the

party seeking a stay to demonstrate a clear hardship or inequity if the present action

moves forward, to address the injury done to the opposing party, and to evaluate the

public interest, including the judiciary's interests in efficiency, economy, and fairness.

See generally Landis, 299 U.S. at 255; CMAX, Inc., 300 F.2d at 268-69.

In the present case, neither the general rules governing stays of pending litigation

nor the Defendants' reasons for a stay militate in favor of staying this action. First,

Plaintiffs would be severely prejudiced if they were not permitted to effect a form of

service necessary in order to make any resulting judgment enforceable in both the United

States and Taiwan. Second, as noted above, Defendants have not demonstrated that they

would be similarly prejudiced. See generally Landis, 299 U.S. at 255; CMAX, Inc., 300

F.2d at 268-69. Defendants Lotus and Equity assert in conclusory form only that

granting the extension without a stay would prejudice Defendant Jumbo (Doc. No. 120 at

2). If Defendants are concerned about Jumbo's opportunity to conduct discovery or

prepare for trial, however, the Court has the power to extend discovery upon proper proof

and request. See FED. R. CIV. P. 16. Moreover, Defendant Jumbo has most likely

received notice of the litigation, as evidenced by the documents sent to their legal

counsel and the active participation of their distributor, Lotus, in this lawsuit. 

Consequently, Defendants have not met their burden of showing hardship or inequity. 

Id. Third, although Defendants assert that not granting a stay would force Equity and

Lotus to permit Jumbo to duplicate their discovery efforts, Defendants fail to explain this

statement or how allowing Jumbo to duplicate their discovery efforts would burden them. 

Finally, the Court must consider the possibility that Jumbo may never be properly served. 

In this situation, the federal judiciary's interest in efficiency and fairness will be better

Case 2:04-cv-01904-SMM Document 127 Filed 07/26/06 Page 6 of 7
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

-7-

served by letting the case proceed rather than delaying the case for a Defendant that may

never enter the litigation. For the preceding reasons, the Court will deny Defendants'

request to stay the proceedings until Defendant Jumbo answers or the time period for an

answer expires.

Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED GRANTING Plaintiffs' Second Motion for

Extension of Time to Serve Defendant Jumbo Surplus Corporation with Complaint (Doc.

No. 117). 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the time for service of the Summons and

Complaint upon Defendant Jumbo Surplus Corporation shall be extended for a period of

six months, up to and including March 6, 2007.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED DENYING Defendants' request to stay litigation

until Defendant Jumbo answers or the answer period expires. 

DATED this 26th day of July, 2006.

Case 2:04-cv-01904-SMM Document 127 Filed 07/26/06 Page 7 of 7