Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-05005/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-05005-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1331(a) Fed. Question: Real Property

---

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

 This disposition is not designated for publication and may not be cited.

Case No. C 05-5005 JF

ORDER (1) DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS FOR UNTIMELY SERVICE AND IMPROPER

VENUE, AND (2) TRANSFERRING ACTION FOR IMPROPER VENUE

(JFEX2)

**E-Filed 6/14/06**

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

GARDEN CITY BOXING CLUB,

 Plaintiff,

 v.

BENJAMIN SANCHEZ, ET AL.

 Defendants.

Case Number C 05-5005 JF

 

ORDER1 (1) DENYING

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO

DISMISS FOR UNTIMELY SERVICE

AND IMPROPER VENUE, AND (2)

TRANSFERRING ACTION FOR

IMPROPER VENUE

[re: docket nos. 5, 6, 7, 8]

I. DISCUSSION

Defendants move to dismiss this action on two grounds: untimely service and improper

venue. The motion has been fully briefed, and the Court has determined that the motion is

appropriate for disposition without oral argument pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b). For the

reasons set forth below, the motion will be denied, and the action will be transferred to the San

Francisco/Oakland Division. 

Case 3:05-cv-05005-WHA Document 17 Filed 06/14/06 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 Defendants’ motion and reply emphasize that Plaintiff has not shown good cause

for the delay. However, as Plaintiff points out, under the current Rule 4(m), even when “good

cause does not exist, the court may in its discretion decide whether to dismiss the case without

prejudice or extend time for service.” Petrucelli v. Bohringer and Ratzinger GmBH, 46 F.3d

1298 at 1305 (3d Cir. 1995). The Advisory Committee’s note on Rule 4(m) explains that it

“authorizes the court to relieve a plaintiff of the consequences of an application of [the]

subdivision even if there is no good cause shown.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(m) advisory committee’s note

(1993).

2

Case No. C 05-5005 JF

ORDER (1) DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS FOR UNTIMELY SERVICE AND IMPROPER

VENUE, AND (2) TRANSFERRING ACTION FOR IMPROPER VENUE

(JFEX2)

A. Untimely Service

Defendants argue that this action should be dismissed because service was untimely. 

Plaintiff concedes that neither Defendant was served within 120 days of the filing of the

complaint as required by Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Benjamin Sanchez

and Erica Jennifer Sanchez were served 136 and 137 days, respectively, after the complaint was

filed. Rule 4(m) states that:

If service of the summons and complaint is not made upon a defendant within 120

days after the filing of the complaint, the court, upon motion or on its own

initiative after notice to the plaintiff, shall dismiss the action without prejudice as

to that defendant or direct that service be effected within a specified time;

provided that if the plaintiff shows good cause for the failure, the court shall

extend the time for service for an appropriate period. 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m) (emphasis added). 

Plaintiff argues that the Court should exercise its discretion and extend the time for

service because the delay in service was minimal and non-prejudicial to Defendants.2 The Court

will exercise its discretion to extend the time for service such that the service on Defendants shall

be considered timely. However, the Court cautions Plaintiff and its counsel to exercise greater

diligence regarding deadlines in the future.

B. Improper Venue

Defendant moves to dismiss, arguing that the proper venue for this action is the San

Francisco Division, rather than the San Jose Division of this Court. Plaintiff agrees that venue is

improper but argues that dismissal is an unnecessarily harsh remedy for an inadvertent filing

error, and that transfer is a more appropriate remedy. Under Civil Local Rule 3-2(c)-(d), the

Court finds that because this action arises in Sonoma County it should be assigned to the San

Case 3:05-cv-05005-WHA Document 17 Filed 06/14/06 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

Case No. C 05-5005 JF

ORDER (1) DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS FOR UNTIMELY SERVICE AND IMPROPER

VENUE, AND (2) TRANSFERRING ACTION FOR IMPROPER VENUE

(JFEX2)

Francisco/Oakland Division, rather than the San Jose Division. The Court agrees that the action

should be transferred to the proper venue in accordance with Local Rule 3-2(f). 

II. ORDER

Good cause therefore appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants’ motion to

dismiss is denied. Time for service of the complaint upon the Defendants is hereby extended by

seventeen days. Pursuant to Northern District of California Civil Local Rule 3-2(d) this action is

transferred to the San Francisco/Oakland Division. The Clerk of the Court will reassign this case

to a judge in the San Francisco/Oakland Division, pursuant to this Court’s Assignment Plan.

DATED: June 14, 2006

_______________________

JEREMY FOGEL

United States District Judge

Case 3:05-cv-05005-WHA Document 17 Filed 06/14/06 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

4

Case No. C 05-5005 JF

ORDER (1) DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS FOR UNTIMELY SERVICE AND IMPROPER

VENUE, AND (2) TRANSFERRING ACTION FOR IMPROPER VENUE

(JFEX2)

This Order has been served upon the following persons:

Thomas P. Riley tprlaw@att.net 

Elizabeth R. Palmer epalmer@majlaw.com 

Case 3:05-cv-05005-WHA Document 17 Filed 06/14/06 Page 4 of 4