Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_17-cv-08035/USCOURTS-azd-3_17-cv-08035-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal - Employment Discrimination

---

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 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Oscar Vargas, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Snowflake Unified School District No. 5, et 

al., 

Defendants. 

No. CV-17-08035-PCT-JAT

ORDER 

 The Court now rules on Plaintiff Oscar Vargas’ motion requesting an extension of 

time to serve the Snowflake Unified School District (“the District”) with his complaint. 

(Doc. 7). 

 Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 4(m), a defendant must be served 

within 90 days after a complaint is filed. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has 

explained that a district court must extend this time limit if a plaintiff shows good cause 

for doing so. Lemoge v. United States, 587 F.3d 1188, 1198 (9th Cir. 2009). 

Alternatively, a district court may, in its discretion, extend the time for service if the 

plaintiff has shown that the failure to serve was the result of excusable neglect. Id. 

Plaintiff’s motion does not show that good cause exists to extend the time to file. 

Moreover, there has been no determination that Plaintiff in fact served the wrong party; 

the District makes that argument in its motion to dismiss, which is still pending before 

this Court. (Doc. 4). The Court therefore finds that Plaintiff’s motion is not ripe. 

 Similarly, the Court will not grant advanced permission for Plaintiff to serve the 

Case 3:17-cv-08035-JAT Document 8 Filed 03/17/17 Page 1 of 2
- 2 - 

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 

district by publication. “The decision whether to pursue personal service or service by 

publication is that of the plaintiff, not the court. Because the court does not preauthorize 

service by publication, the determination whether publication constitutes adequate service 

is made later in the case.” Ritchie v. Salvatore Gatto Partners, 222 P.3d 920, 923 n.4 

(Ariz. App. 2010) (internal citations omitted). 

 For these reasons, 

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion to extend time to serve (Doc. 7) is 

DENIED, without prejudice. 

 Dated this 17th day of March, 2017. 

 

Case 3:17-cv-08035-JAT Document 8 Filed 03/17/17 Page 2 of 2