Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-01425/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-01425-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1346 Tort Claim

---

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

 Plaintiffs miscalculate this date as December 6, 2007.

- 1 - 07CV1425-LAB (NLS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAVID MEDNANSKY AND MARTINE

MEDNANSKY,

Plaintiffs,

CASE NO. 07CV1425-LAB (NLS)

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND

DENYING IN PART EX PARTE

APPLICATION FOR EXTENSION

OF TIME IN WHICH TO SERVE

DEFENDANTS

vs.

U.S.D.A. Forest Service employees

THOMAS F. GILLETTE, SUSAN

DeSONIA, SALLY D. GOODRICH, RICH

TOBIN, TINA TERREL, AND 10

Unknown U.S.D.A. Forest Service

Employees, and the United States

Government of America, 

Defendants.

Plaintiffs filed their complaint on August 8, 2007. Ordinarily, under Fed. R. Civ. P.

4(m), they would be required to serve Defendants within 120 days — i.e., December 4,

2007.1 Rule 4(m) does, however, provide for an extension of time upon a showing of good

cause. After the deadline, Plaintiffs, who are proceeding in pro per, sought an extension of

time in which to serve the five named individual Defendants who are U.S. Forest Service

employees. They submitted their ex parte application, which was accepted by discrepancy

order for filing.

/ / /

Case 3:07-cv-01425-LAB-CAB Document 29 Filed 01/16/08 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 - 07CV1425-LAB (NLS)

Plaintiffs explain that they had difficulty discovering the home addresses of certain

U.S. Forest Service employees and stated they would be filing a motion to compel the Forest

Service to provide the addresses. Plaintiffs have filed no such motion, however, nor have

they provided any evidence of diligent efforts to locate these Defendants’ addresses.

Plaintiffs also stated the Forest Service’s Office of General Counsel misinformed them about

the General Counsel’s legal ability to accept service of process for Forest Service employees

served in their individual capacity. Plaintiffs state they did not realize their error in service

until Defendants filed a motion to dismiss, in part because of defective service. Plaintiffs

were successful in serving individual Defendants Gillett and DeSonia on December 6, 2007,

but no others. 

With their opposition to Plaintiffs’ application, Defendants submit a declaration by Ritu

Ahuja, an attorney in the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Office of General Counsel, stating

an inquiry was made in the office and it appears at no time did Plaintiffs contact any attorney

in the office.

The Court finds Plaintiffs have not shown good cause for extending the time to serve

Defendants Goodrich, Tobin, or Terrel. There is no evidence they were intentionally or

actively misled by Defendants or Defendants’ counsel, or that they were even entitled to look

to Defendants’ counsel to advise them about service. Furthermore, there is no evidence

they diligently sought to serve these Defendants. The fact that Plaintiffs are proceeding in

pro per and misunderstood service requirements does not excuse their failure to timely serve

these Defendants. Hamilton v. Endell, 981 F.2d 1062, 1065 (9th Cir. 1992) (“[I]gnorance of

governing rules alone will not excuse a litigant's failure to effect timely service.”); King v.

Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1986) (“Pro se litigants must follow the same rules of

procedure that govern other litigants.”)

On the other hand, Plaintiffs did manage to serve Defendants Gillett and DeSonia two

days after the 120-day deadline had passed. The Court therefore finds they were

reasonably diligent in attempting to serve these Defendants, and that their inability to locate

/ / /

Case 3:07-cv-01425-LAB-CAB Document 29 Filed 01/16/08 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 - 07CV1425-LAB (NLS)

these Defendants’ home addresses suffices to show good cause for granting an extension

of two days.

Plaintiffs’ ex parte application is therefore DENIED as to Defendants Goodrich, Tobin,

and Terrel, but GRANTED as to Defendants Gillett and DeSonia, both of whom have now

been served.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: 1-15-08

___________________________________

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS

United States District Judge 

Case 3:07-cv-01425-LAB-CAB Document 29 Filed 01/16/08 Page 3 of 3