Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-00362/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-00362-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 290
Nature of Suit: Other Real Property Actions
Cause of Action: 42:1981 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 Non-substantive, i.e., procedural, requests of the Court should be filed as ex parte

applications; substantive request must be filed as properly noticed motions. Civil Local Rule

7.1(b) provides that “[a]ll hearing dates for any matters on which a ruling is required shall be

obtained from the clerk of the judge to whom the case is assigned.” CIV. L.R. 7.1(b). Plaintiff’s

current “motion” is construed as an ex parte application rather than a motion.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

VIRGINIA REEDER,

Plaintiff,

v.

JOHN KNAPIK dba K/MONT

CONSTRUCTION, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No. 07-CV-362-L(LSP)

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND

DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S

EX PARTE APPLICATION [doc. #38]

Plaintiff, appearing pro se, filed a document entitled “MOTION1

 FOR LEAVE OF

COURT FOR AN ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF A MONTH EXTENSION OF TIME TO

LOCATE AND SERVE THE REMAINDER OF DEFENDANTS WITH THE SUMMONS

AND FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT OR THAT BY SERVING DEFENDANT JOHN

KNAPIK WOULD BE ENOUGH TO HAVE SERVED ALL UN SERVED DEFENDANTS.” 

1. Extension of time

Plaintiff seeks a one-month extension of time in which to serve the remaining defendants. 

Plaintiff appears to believe that the filing of an amended complaint extends the 120-day time for

service of process: “That on March 21th, 2007, plaintiff filed her First Amended Complaint per

Case 3:07-cv-00362-L-LSP Document 40 Filed 06/26/07 Page 1 of 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

2 The exception to this Rule is when a party is given leave to amend a complaint to

add new parties. The 120-days begins to run with the filing of the amended complaint as to

those new parties only.

2

the Court’s instruction and that plaintiff time started to run on that date and will expires on or

about July 21th, 2007.” Ex parte application at 2. Plaintiff’s belief is incorrect. Federal Rule of

Civil Procedure 4(m) requires a plaintiff to effectuate service of process on defendants within

120 days after the filing of the complaint. Rule 4(j) states in pertinent part:

If a service of the summons and complaint is not made upon a defendant within

120 days after the filing of the complaint and the party on whose behalf such

service was required cannot show good cause why such service was not made

within that period, the action shall be dismissed as to that defendant without

prejudice upon the court's own initiative with notice to such party or upon motion.

FED. R. CIV. P. 4(j).

Generally, the 120-day period runs from the date of the original complaint, not the

amended complaint. The court permits amended complaints so that the pleadings will conform

to the developing evidence, not to enable plaintiff to extend the time for service indefinitely. 

Finch v. George, 763 F. Supp. 967 (N.D. Ill. 1991)(the filing of the amended complaint does not

reset the service clock at zero). Thus, plaintiff cannot extend the service of process period with

respect to an already-named defendant by filing an amended complaint.2

 Here, plaintiff’s

Complaint was filed on February 26, 2007. Plaintiff did not name new defendants in her

amended complaint; therefore, service of process is required to be effectuated no later than June

26, 2007

If a plaintiff fails to serve the Complaint within the time provided, Rule 4(m) further

provides the court "shall dismiss the action without prejudice as to that defendant or direct that

serve be effected within a specified period of time." Thus, Rule 4(m) allows courts to provide

additional time for service, "even if good cause is not shown." Notes of the Advisory

Committee on 1993 Amendments to Rule 4(m). As discussed above, service of process on all

defendants is currently due on June 26, 2007. Because plaintiff has sought an enlargement of

time within which service was due, the Court will grant plaintiff’s request for a 30-day extension

of time from June 26, 2007 to July 26, 2007 in which to serve the currently unserved defendants.

Case 3:07-cv-00362-L-LSP Document 40 Filed 06/26/07 Page 2 of 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

3

2. Alternative Relief

Plaintiff alternatively seeks relief in the form of an order that would deem service of

defendant John Knapik as sufficient to find all unserved defendants served. This request is

without any legal basis and cannot be ordered. Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

requires a plaintiff to perfect personal service on each defendant. FED. R. CIV. P. 4(e)(2). 

Without such personal service, a district court is without jurisdiction to render judgment against

the defendant. Friedman v. Estate of Presser, 929 F.2d 1151, 1157 (6th Cir. 1991) (finding

service by mail without an acknowledgment of receipt is insufficient); see also Ecclesiastical

Order of Ism of Am, Inc. v. Chasin, 845 F.2d 113, 116 (6th Cir. 1988)(finding service on a

defendant's employer is insufficient). Whether a defendant had notice of the legal action, despite

lack of personal service, is immaterial. Friedman, 929 F.2d at 1155. “[B]efore a court may

exercise personal jurisdiction over a defendant, there must be more than notice to the defendant

and a constitutionally sufficient relationship between the defendant and the forum.” Omni

Capital Int'l v. Rudolf Wolff & Co., LTD., 484 U.S. 97, 104, 108 S. Ct. 404, 409 (1987)); Amen

v. City of Dearborn, 532 F.2d 554, 557 (6th Cir. 1976) (“[D]ue process requires proper service

of process in order to obtain in personam jurisdiction.”). In short, the requirement of proper

service of process “is not some mindless technicality.” Del Raine v. Carlson, 826 F.2d 698, 704

(7th Cir.1987). 

Based on the foregoing, plaintiff’s request for an order that would construe service of

process on defendant Knapik as sufficient to establish service of process over all other unserved

defendants is denied.

3. June 12, 2007 Motion

Finally, in the body of plaintiff’s ex parte application, she “asks that this court take under

advisement of the plaintiff’s June 12th, 2007 motion for leave to have defendant Knapik being

properly served . . . .” (Ex parte application at 3). Plaintiff is advised that her “motion for leave

of court,” has been rejected as being in non-compliance with Civil Local Rules 5.1, 7.1 and 47.1. 

Plaintiff previously has been advised of the necessity of complying with the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure and the Civil Local Rules notwithstanding her pro se status. Plaintiff is again

Case 3:07-cv-00362-L-LSP Document 40 Filed 06/26/07 Page 3 of 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

3 The Court notes that defendant Knapik has not been served with process as of this

date.

4

reminded of her obligation to be aware of and to comply with the Rules of Court.

Based on the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED plaintiff’s ex parte application for a 30 day

extension of time is GRANTED. Plaintiff shall have until July 26, 2007 in which to effectuate

service of process on all unserved defendants. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff’s ex

parte application for an order finding defendant John Knapik’s service of process3

 as being

sufficient with respect to all unserved defendants is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: June 26, 2007

M. James Lorenz

United States District Court Judge

COPY TO: 

HON. LEO S. PAPAS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

ALL PARTIES/COUNSEL

Case 3:07-cv-00362-L-LSP Document 40 Filed 06/26/07 Page 4 of 4