Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-01595/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-01595-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 290
Nature of Suit: Other Real Property Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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

HECTOR CASILLAS,

 Plaintiff,

 v. 

AURORA LOAN SERVICES LLC, ET AL.,

 Defendants.

1:09-CV-1595-OWW-DLB

ORDER RE: SERVICE OF

PROCESS

On September 9, 2009, Defendant Aurora Loan Services LLC,

removed this case to federal court. (Doc. 1.) The notice of

removal included a copy of the state court complaint.

Subsequently, Plaintiff stipulated to dismissing, with prejudice,

Aurora Loan Services LLC from this case. (Doc. 17.) The remaining

named defendants in this case – Homecomings Financial, Stephanie

Ruiz dba Family Lending Center, and MILA dba Mortgage Investment

Lending Associates – did not join in the removal. As reflected in

the notice of removal (Doc. 1 at 4), and as otherwise indicated by

the record (Doc. 20), the remaining defendants have not been served

with the state court complaint.

On March 18, 2010, an order issued requiring Plaintiff to show

cause, in writing, by March 25, 2010, why the named unserved

defendants should not be dismissed pursuant to Rule 4(m) of the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Doc. 21.) Plaintiff was

directed to address whether good cause exists to extend the time

period for service. Plaintiff timely responded to the order to

show cause. (Docs. 22 & 23.) In Plaintiff’s response, Plaintiff

Case 1:09-cv-01595-AWI-DLB Document 24 Filed 04/23/10 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

explains that “Plaintiff’s counsel previously had intended to

timely serve the Summons, but then spent time on case related

collateral issues including a preliminarily investigating of the

other defendants to ensure that it was still advantageous to serve

those defendants: we are still obtaining more information about one

of the defendants, but plan to have a process servers serve the

Summons within the week of an order providing an extension.” (Doc.

23 at 4.)

Pursuant to Rule 4(m):

If a defendant is not served within 120 days after the

complaint is filed, 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. But if the

plaintiff shows good cause for the failure, the court

must extend the time for service for an appropriate

period.

For named unserved defendants, Rule 4(m) requires the plaintiff to

serve them within 120 days after the notice of removal is filed.

See Vazquez v. N. County Transit Dist., 292 F.3d 1049, 1053 & n.3

(9th Cir. 2002); Rhodes v. Electronic Data Sys. Corp., No. CIV S06-1715 MCE EFB PS, 2006 WL 2830165, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 29,

2006). As explained in In re Sheehan:

Rule 4(m) requires a two-step analysis in deciding

whether or not to extend the prescribed time period for

the service of a complaint. First, upon a showing of good

cause for the defective service, the court must extend

the time period. Second, if there is no good cause, the

court has the discretion to dismiss without prejudice or

to extend the time period

253 F.3d 507, 512 (9th Cir. 2001) (internal citations omitted).

In light of Plaintiff’s response to the order to show cause,

regardless of whether “good cause” technically exists under Rule

4(m) for not serving the remaining defendants within 120 days after

Case 1:09-cv-01595-AWI-DLB Document 24 Filed 04/23/10 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

the notice of removal was filed, discretion is exercised to extend

the date by which service must be accomplished. Plaintiff shall

have until April 30, 2010, to effectuate service of process on the

named unserved defendants. Otherwise, any named unserved defendant

will be dismissed without prejudice. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 22, 2010 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

9i274f UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:09-cv-01595-AWI-DLB Document 24 Filed 04/23/10 Page 3 of 3