Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-01234/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-01234-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Other 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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ZARAH ZAMBRANO, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

COUNTY OF KERN, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:24-cv-01234-KES-CDB

ORDER GRANTING EX PARTE 

APPLICATION TO EXTEND TIME FOR 

SERVICE OF PROCESS 

(Doc. 33)

Deadline: February 21, 2025

Plaintiffs Dutchlynn Broitzmann (“D. Broitzmann”) and Oscar Zambrano (“O. 

Zambrano”) (collectively, “Plaintiffs”), as the natural parents and purported successors in interest 

of decedent Zarah Zambrano, commenced this action against the County of Kern and numerous 

individual defendants with their filing of a complaint on October 9, 2024. (Doc. 1). On October 

11, 2024, the Clerk of the Court issued summonses and the Court entered an Order setting a 

mandatory scheduling conference. (Docs. 4, 5, 6, 7). The Order directed Plaintiffs to “diligently 

pursue service of summons and complaint” and “promptly file proofs of service.” (Doc. 7 p. 1).

The Order further advised Plaintiff that failure to diligently prosecute this action “may result in 

the imposition of sanctions, including the dismissal of unserved defendants.” (Id.).

On November 21, 2024, the Court extended time for Defendant County of Kern to respond 

to the complaint until January 3, 2025, and continued the January 14, 2025, scheduling conference 

to February 6, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. (Doc. 24). On December 3, 2024, the Court entered order 

Case 1:24-cv-01234-KES-CDB Document 35 Filed 12/06/24 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

extending nunc pro tunc time for all County Defendants to have until January 20, 2025, to respond 

to the complaint. (Doc. 32).

Pending before the Court is Plaintiffs’ ex parte application to extend the time by 45 days 

for service of the summons and complaint to the remaining Defendants - Devin Ramey, Monica 

Castro, and Deborah Karsgor (collectively, “remaining Defendants”), filed on December 5, 2024. 

(Doc. 33). The application is supported by the declaration of counsel for Plaintiffs in which 

counsel attests that “Plaintiffs have diligently attempted to locate and serve all Defendants, but 

have not been able to complete service on these [remaining] Defendants” as “[s]everal 

[D]efendants have been unable to be located based on current information in the possession nof 

Plaintiffs, and or/were not the correct [D]efendant.” (Id. at 4); (see id. at 4, Decl. Chung, ¶ 13). 

Plaintiffs anticipate the current statutory time to serve these remaining Defendants “will prove 

difficult” in light of the upcoming holidays. (Id. at 4). Plaintiffs attest the proposed extension will 

not prejudicially delay the proceedings because the pleadings are not yet at issue. (Id.). Counsel 

for Plaintiffs attests “[t]his matter could not be placed on the Court’s civil law and motion calendar 

and no stipulation could be made because not all [D]efendants have been served.” (Decl. Chung, 

¶ 18). The current statutory deadline to serve the summons and complaint is January 7, 2025. 

(Doc. 33 at 5); (see Doc. 7 p. 1). On November 14, 2024, counsel for Plaintiffs emailed counsel 

for Defendant County of Kern its request for extension of time to serve the remaining Defendants. 

(Doc. 33 p. 5); (see Decl. Chung, ¶ 17). Defendant County of Kern does not oppose the instant 

request. (Id.). Counsel for Plaintiffs requests that the Court extend the time for service until 

February 21, 2024. (Id. at 6).

With respect to service, where a plaintiff fails to serve a defendant within 90 days after the 

complaint is filed, Rule 4(m), Fed. R. Civ. P. requires the Court to dismiss the action or order that 

service be made within a specified time upon a showing by the plaintiff of “good cause” for

the delay. See In re Sheehan, 253 F.3d 507, 512 (9th Cir. 2001).

Here, based on counsel for Plaintiffs’ attestations, the Court finds good cause to extend the 

time under Rule 4(m) to effect service on the remaining Defendants.

///

///

Case 1:24-cv-01234-KES-CDB Document 35 Filed 12/06/24 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

Accordingly, in light of Plaintiffs’ representations and good cause appearing, IT IS 

HEREBY ORDERED:

1. Pursuant to Rule 4(m), Fed. R. Civ. P., no later than February 21 2024, Plaintiffs

SHALL FILE summonses returned executed as to each Defendant; and

2. The February 6, 2025 scheduling conference is reset to March 24, 2025, at 9:00 

AM. before Magistrate Judge Christopher D. Baker. The parties are reminded of 

their obligation to file a joint scheduling report at least one week prior to the 

conference. (Doc. 7).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 6, 2024 ___________________ _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:24-cv-01234-KES-CDB Document 35 Filed 12/06/24 Page 3 of 3