Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-00996/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-00996-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 820
Nature of Suit: Copyright
Cause of Action: 17:101 Copyright Infringement

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MALIBU MEDIA, LLC,

Plaintiff,

 v.

JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP

ADDRESS 50.174.232.154,

Defendant. /

No. C 16-00996 WHA

ORDER DENYING REQUEST

TO EXTEND DEADLINE

TO SERVE DEFENDANT

On March 23, an order granted Malibu Media leave to serve a third party subpoena on

defendant’s Internet provider in order to obtain defendant’s identifying information. Malibu

Media served the subpoena on March 28 and received the response on May 17. A prior order

prospectively extended the deadline for Malibu Media to serve defendant to thirty-five days

following receipt of defendant’s identifying information, resulting in a deadline of June 20.

After receiving defendant’s identifying information on May 17, Malibu Media

conducted an investigation and on May 23 moved to file its amended complaint and proposed

summons under seal pursuant to the protective order in this case. The summons issued on May

24, and Malibu Media instructed its process server to begin attempting service. 

In their brief, counsel for Malibu Media state that the process server attempted service at

defendant’s home (which is behind a locked gate) on June 7, June 9, and June 15. Malibu

Media fails to provide a sworn record of the service attempts. It provides no explanation for the

two-week delay between the issuance of the summons and the first service attempt or for the

Case 3:16-cv-00996-WHA Document 12 Filed 06/20/16 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

six-day delay between the second and third service attempts. Further, Malibu Media fails to

explain why the process server made no attempt to serve defendant at any other location besides

his home.

Malibu Media has not been diligent in attempting service. Its motion to extend the

deadline to effect service is DENIED. If service is not timely made today, the case will be

dismissed for lack of prosecution.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 20, 2016. 

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:16-cv-00996-WHA Document 12 Filed 06/20/16 Page 2 of 2