Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-00162/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-00162-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Legal Malpractice

---

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LARRY J. AUSTIN,

Plaintiff,

v.

GRAHAM TAYLOR, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 15-cv-00162-JSC 

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF 

UNTIL APRIL 4, 2016 TO FILE PROOF

OF SERVICE OF THE SUMMONS AND 

COMPLAINT

Although Plaintiff Larry Austin filed this civil action over one year ago, he has yet to serve 

Defendants despite being granted six extensions of time to do so. Plaintiff now renews his request 

for a stay of this action due to his own bankruptcy or for a further 90 days to serve the complaint. 

(Dkt. No. 40.) For the reasons explained below, Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED in part and 

GRANTED insofar as Plaintiff is granted until April 4, 2016 to file proof of service of the 

summons and first amended complaint.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff, Mr. Austin, joined by corporate plaintiffs Furama Los Angeles, Inc., and Dragon 

Charm, initially filed this action on January 12, 2015 alleging claims of breach of contract, legal 

malpractice, fraud, and civil conspiracy. (Dkt. No. 1.) Plaintiffs made no attempt to serve the 

complaint after filing and instead sought a stay of the action or an extension of the time for service 

so that allegedly related proceedings in New York State Court, the District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, and the United States Tax Court could sort themselves out. (Dkt. No. 6.) The 

Court granted Plaintiffs a 90-day extension of time to serve the complaint provided Plaintiffs 

provide notice of the lawsuit to Defendants. (Dkt. Nos. 9 & 10.) 

At the expiration of this first extension, Plaintiffs again moved for an extension which the 

Case 3:15-cv-00162-VC Document 43 Filed 03/15/16 Page 1 of 5
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Court granted. (Dkt. Nos. 11 & 12.) Plaintiffs then sought a further six month extension of time 

for service and indicated that they intended to file a First Amended Complaint. (Dkt. No. 13.) 

The Court declined to grant such a prolonged extension, and instead, ordered Plaintiffs to file and 

serve the First Amended Complaint a month later—by October 13, 2015. (Dkt. No. 15.) 

Predictably, on that date, Plaintiffs moved for yet another extension of time seeking an additional 

30-day extension of time to file the First Amended Complaint and a 15-day extension beyond that 

for service. (Dkt. No. 16.) The Court granted the request for a further extension in part giving 

Plaintiffs 20 days to file the amended complaint and 15 days thereafter to serve it. (Dkt. No. 17.)

Again on the deadline, Plaintiffs sought a 60-day extension of time to amend and 15 day 

extension of time to serve. (Dkt. No. 19.) Plaintiffs’ counsel James Braden simultaneously 

sought to withdraw as counsel such that Plaintiff Mr. Austin, an attorney himself, would proceed 

pro se.

1

(Dkt.No. 18.) Because there were two additional corporate plaintiffs at that time, and a 

corporation cannot represent itself, the Court denied Mr. Braden’s motion to withdraw as counsel. 

(Dkt. No. 20.) Plaintiffs thereafter obtained new pro hac vice counsel for the corporate plaintiffs, 

and Mr. Braden was granted leave to withdraw as counsel for Mr. Austin, but remained as local 

counsel for the corporate plaintiffs. (Dkt. Nos. 24 & 25.) The Court also granted a fourth 

extension of time for Plaintiffs to amend and serve the complaint. (Dkt. No. 29.)

Plaintiff Austin thereafter filed his First Amended Complaint omitting any claims by the 

corporate plaintiffs, such that the action proceeds only on behalf of Mr. Austin. (Dkt. No. 31.) 

Three days later, Plaintiff sought leave to file a Second Amended Complaint because he had been 

rushed in completing his First Amended Complaint due to health issues and limited resources.

(Dkt. No. 32.) The Court granted him a nearly month-long extension of time to amend and twoweek extension thereafter to serve. (Dkt. No. 34.) Plaintiff also sought permission for electronic 

case filing, which the Court granted. (Dkt. No. 33.) 

Plaintiff thereafter failed to file an amended complaint and on the deadline for service filed 

a motion seeking a stay based his recent filing of a Chapter 7 bankruptcy action on February 1, 

 

1 Notably, Mr. Braden’s motion to withdraw made no reference to Plaintiff’s significant medical 

issues which according to Plaintiff’s subsequent filings have been going on for quite some time.

Case 3:15-cv-00162-VC Document 43 Filed 03/15/16 Page 2 of 5
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

2016 or alternatively seeking a further 90-day extension of time to serve his complaint. (Dkt. No. 

37.) The Court denied the motion for stay based on Plaintiff’s voluntary bankruptcy petition 

because the automatic stay provision of 11 U.S.C. § 362 does not apply to civil proceedings 

brought by the debtor. See In re Miller, 397 F.3d 726, 729 (9th Cir. 2005) (“[t]he automatic stay 

is applicable only to proceedings against the debtor.”) The Court granted Plaintiff’s request for 

yet another extension giving him until March 7, 2016 to file proof of service of the summons and 

complaint. (Dkt. No. 38.) The Order advised Plaintiff that if he sought an additional extension of 

time to file proof of service of the summons and complaint his filing must do the following:

(1) specify the good cause in support of his request for a further 

extension, and (2) address the Court’s questions as to why he cannot 

simply hire a process server to effectuate service, and why Mr. 

Braden should not assist Mr. Austin in doing so given his continual 

involvement in this action. Alternatively, if Plaintiff contends that 

there would be a statute of limitations bar to filing a subsequent 

action were the Court to dismiss under Rule 4(m), Plaintiff shall 

explain the basis for this argument and shall also file a declaration 

attesting as to whether he or Mr. Braden has notified Defendants of 

the pendency of this action as required by the Court at the April 

1[6], 2015 case management conference.

(Id. at 4.)

Again on the deadline for service, Plaintiff filed a motion for an extension of time to 

respond to the Court’s order, and two days later, on March 9, 2016, Plaintiff renewed his motion 

for a stay based on his bankruptcy or alternatively, for a further 90-day extension. (Dkt. No. 40.)

Plaintiff again details his significant health problems and his depleted financial means which he 

contends have rendered it impossible for him to serve the complaint. Plaintiff also contends that a 

stay is appropriate so that the yet-to-be-determined Trustee in Plaintiff’s bankruptcy action can 

make a determination as to whether to continue with this case as it is one of the primary assets of 

Plaintiff’s estate. (Id. at 7-8.) A day later, Plaintiff’s former counsel James Braden emailed the 

Court stating that he received a wire transfer of $2,000 from Plaintiff last week and is “proceeding 

to hire process servers who can accomplish service on all defendants.” (Dkt. No. 42.)

On March 10, 2016, Plaintiff failed to appear for the scheduled Case Management 

Conference. (Dkt. No. 41.)

Case 3:15-cv-00162-VC Document 43 Filed 03/15/16 Page 3 of 5
4

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

LEGAL STANDARD

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) states that a defendant “must” be served 90 days 

after the complaint is filed and that if a defendant is not so served “the court—on motion or on its 

own after notice to the plaintiff – must dismiss the action without prejudice against that defendant 

or order that service be made within a specified time.” Id. (emphasis added). However, “if the 

plaintiff shows good cause for the failure, the court must extend the time for service for an 

appropriate period.” Id. A court’s discretion to extend the time for service is not limitless. Efaw 

v. Williams, 473 F.3d 1038, 1041 (9th Cir. 2007). “Rule 4(m) provides two avenues for relief. 

The first is mandatory: the district court must extend time for service upon a showing of good 

cause. The second is discretionary: if good cause is not established, the district court may extend 

time for service upon a showing of excusable neglect.” Lemoge v. United States, 587 F.3d 1188, 

1198 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal citation omitted). In considering a discretionary extension the court 

should consider factors “like a statute of limitations bar, prejudice to the defendant, actual notice 

of a lawsuit, and eventual service.” Efaw, 473 F.3d at 1041 (internal citation and quotation marks 

omitted).

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff seeks a seventh extension of time for service based on (1) his voluntary Chapter 7 

bankruptcy petition, or (2) alternatively, based on his health and financial issues. However,

Plaintiff’s bankruptcy action was dismissed on March 9, 2016. See In re: Larry James Austin, No. 

16-10369–RGM, Dkt. No. 30 (E.D. Va. Mar. 9, 2016). Plaintiff’s request to stay this action in 

light of his bankruptcy action is therefore moot. 

Turning to Plaintiff’s request for a further 90-extension of time for service due to his health 

and financial problems, it is unclear whether Plaintiff contends that these issues constitute good 

cause under Rule 4(m) or whether they are a basis for discretionary relief under the excusable 

neglect standard. The Court’s prior order raised this same concern, but Plaintiff’s renewed 

motion does not shed any light on this matter. Nor does it address whether there are any statute of 

limitations issues, or whether Mr. Braden or Plaintiff in fact provided notice of this lawsuit to 

Defendants as the Court required at the April 16, 2015 case management conference. Instead, 

Case 3:15-cv-00162-VC Document 43 Filed 03/15/16 Page 4 of 5
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

with respect to notice, Plaintiff states that “as [the] headline story [regarding the filing of this 

lawsuit] was featured on the front page of many legal publications in New York and elsewhere, it 

is difficult to believe Defendants have not received informal notice of this case.” (Dkt. No. 40 at 

5.) The Court is troubled both by Plaintiff’s apparent contention that this is adequate notice and 

by the fact that Mr. Braden apparently did not provide Defendants with notice of the lawsuit 

nearly a year ago despite being ordered to do so. The Court is also troubled that although Plaintiff 

is proceeding pro se and was granted leave to electronically file things on his own behalf, both Mr. 

Braden and Mr. Williams continue to file things on his behalf. Indeed, Plaintiff apparently 

forwarded Mr. Braden the funds to hire a process server and Mr. Braden is responsible for 

effectuating service of the summons and complaint. 

Based on Mr. Braden’s representation as an officer of the Court that he has received the 

$2,000 from Plaintiff and has begun to hire process servers to effectuate service of the complaint, 

the Court will grant Plaintiff a brief seventh and final extension of time for service. Plaintiff shall 

file proof of service of the summons and complaint by April 4, 2016. Plaintiff is warned that 

no further extensions shall be granted and that the case will be dismissed without prejudice 

as to each defendant for whom no proof of service is filed by that deadline. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 15, 2016

JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:15-cv-00162-VC Document 43 Filed 03/15/16 Page 5 of 5