Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-05914/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-05914-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 370
Nature of Suit: Other Fraud
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Fraud

---

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

The five parties who have not been served are Michael Holmes, Alexis Zervoglos,

Lite Array Co., Global Tech Appliances, Inc., and Lite Array, a Corporation, each of whom

is apparently a citizen of either the United Kingdom or Hong Kong.

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PENTALPHA MACAU COMMERCIAL

OFFSHORE LIMITED,

Plaintiff,

 v.

DAMODER REDDY, et al.,

Defendants __________________________________

DAMODER REDDY,

Counter Claimant,

 v.

PENTALPHA OFFSHORE LIMITED, et al.,

Counter Defendants /

No. 03-5914 MMC

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT/

COUNTERCLAIMANT’S EX PARTE

APPLICATION FOR EXTENSION OF

TIME TO SERVE SUMMONS;

DISMISSING WITHOUT PREJUDICE

CLAIMS AGAINST UNSERVED PARTIES

(Docket No. 107)

Before the Court is defendant/counterclaimant Damoder Reddy’s (“Reddy”) ex parte

application to extend, pursuant to Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the

deadline to serve the summons and the Third Amended Counterclaim (“TACC”) on five

parties who are foreign citizens and who have yet to be served.1

 Plaintiff/counterdefendant

Case 3:03-cv-05914-MMC Document 111 Filed 04/22/05 Page 1 of 3
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

The docket reflects that Pentalpha e-filed its opposition on April 18, 2005. 

Pentalpha did not provide a chambers copy thereof until April 22, 2005. Pentalpha, as a

consequence, is in violation of the Court’s Standing Orders and General Order No. 45,

Section VI.G, both of which require that a party e-filing a document provide a chambers

copy no later than noon the day after the document is e-filed. The Court, however, has

considered Pentalpha’s opposition.

2

Pentalpha Macau Commercial Offshore, Limited (“Pentalpha”) has filed opposition.2

By order filed September 27, 2004, the Court, upon request by Reddy at the case

management conference, set December 31, 2004 as the deadline for service of any party

who is not a citizen of the United States. (See Pretrial Preparation Order, filed September

27, 2004, at 2.) By order filed December 30, 2004, the Court, upon application by Reddy,

further extended the deadline to January 31, 2005. (See Order Granting Def.’s Ex Parte

Appl. to Continue Deadline to Serve Summons, filed December 30, 2004.) On February 7,

2005, Reddy sought a third extension of the deadline, this time for 90 days. (See Ex Parte

Appl., filed February 7, 2005.) The Court, by order filed February 17, 2005, granted

Reddy’s application for a further extension, but, in light of the February 27, 2006 trial date,

extended the deadline by 60 days, to April 1, 2005. (See Order Granting Def.’s Ex Parte

Appl. for Extension of Time to Serve Summons, filed February 17, 2005.)

In his pending application for a fourth extension of time, Reddy requests the

deadline be extended an additional thirty days, i.e., an extension to May 2, 2005, or, in the

alternative, an order requiring counsel for the defendants who have appeared to accept

service on behalf of the unserved defendants.

Four of the unserved parties, specifically, Michael Holmes, Alexis Zervoglos, Lite

Array Co., and Global Tech Appliances, Inc., were first named in the original CrossComplaint, filed over a year ago; the other unserved party, specifically, Lite Array, was first

named in the First Amended Cross-Complaint, filed approximately eleven months ago. 

Although, as Reddy argues, service on these parties may have been difficult, given their

residency outside of the United States, the fact remains that Reddy has had an

exceptionally lengthy period of time in which to accomplish service. Further, the non-expert

discovery cut-off date for the above-titled action is December 12, 2005. Even if Reddy is

Case 3:03-cv-05914-MMC Document 111 Filed 04/22/05 Page 2 of 3
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

able to effectuate service on any of the unserved parties within the time requested, it is

highly unlikely such party would be able to complete all necessary discovery in time to meet

the dispositive motion cut-off date and other pretrial dates.

Under the circumstances, the Court declines to afford Reddy yet another extension

of time to serve the five unserved parties.

With respect to Reddy’s alternative request, that counsel for the served defendants

be required to accept service on behalf of the unserved defendants, the Court denies the

request for the reason that Reddy fails to offer any legal authority in support of such

request, and, in any event, Reddy fails to show an appropriate factual basis for the granting

of such relief.

Accordingly, Reddy’s application is hereby DENIED. Reddy’s claims against all

unserved parties are hereby DISMISSED without prejudice. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m).

This order terminates Docket No. 107.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 22, 2005 /s/ Maxine M. Chesney 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:03-cv-05914-MMC Document 111 Filed 04/22/05 Page 3 of 3