Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_10-cv-01615/USCOURTS-cand-5_10-cv-01615-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 891
Nature of Suit: Agricultural Acts
Cause of Action: 07:499 Agricultural Commodities Act

---

1 

Case No.: 10-CV-01615-LHK 

ORDER EXTENDING TIME TO SERVE SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT 

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 

United States District Court 

For the Northern District of California 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN JOSE DIVISION 

FULL CIRCLE SALES, INC., a Montana 

corporation, et al., 

 Plaintiffs, 

 v. 

ORGANIC ALLIANCE, INC., a Nevada 

corporation, et al., 

 Defendants. 

)

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

)

Case No.: 10-CV-01615-LHK

ORDER EXTENDING TIME TO SERVE 

SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT 

 

Plaintiffs filed an ex parte application for an order extending time for an additional 120 

days to serve the Summons and Complaint. Having reviewed Plaintiffs’ papers and the relevant 

legal authorities, the Court GRANTS an extension of time to serve the Summons and Complaint on 

all defendants by an additional 30 days. 

I. BACKGROUND 

 Plaintiffs filed the instant action on April 15, 2010. On the same day, this court issued 

summons as to Defendants Organic Alliance, Inc., Thomas Morrison, James Haworth, Parker 

Booth, Alicia Smith Kriese, Corey Ruth, and Michael Rosenthal. However, it appears that 

Plaintiffs never served the summons and complaint upon any of the Defendants. Plaintiffs attribute 

the delay in service to the addition of similarly situated plaintiffs, the filing of two amendments to 

Case 5:10-cv-01615-LHK Document 25 Filed 08/20/10 Page 1 of 3
2 

Case No.: 10-CV-01615-LHK 

ORDER EXTENDING TIME TO SERVE SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT 

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 

United States District Court 

For the Northern District of California 

the complaint, settlement discussions, and the discovery that some of the individual Defendants 

reside outside the state. Plaintiffs move ex parte to extend the time to serve Defendants by 120 

days. 

II. ANALYSIS 

 The time for serving the summons and complaint is set forth in Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 4(m).1 Generally, service upon defendants must be made within 120 days after the 

complaint is filed. Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 4(m). However, if the plaintiff shows good cause for failure 

to serve within the 120-day period, the court is required to extend time for service. Id. Under Rule 

4, a court also has discretion to extend the time for service in the absence of good cause. Lemoge 

v. U.S., 587 F.3d 1188, 1198 (9th Cir. 2009). 

 At a minimum, “good cause” means excusable neglect. Boudette v. Barnette, 923 F.2d 754, 

756 (9th Cir. 1991). In order to demonstrate good cause, a plaintiff may be required show three 

factors: “(a) the party to be served received actual notice of the lawsuit; (b) the defendant would 

suffer no prejudice; and (c) plaintiff would be severely prejudiced if his complaint were 

dismissed.” Id.; In re Sheehan, 253 F.3d 507, 512 (9th Cir. 2001). While it appears that Defendant 

Organic Alliance, Inc., has engaged in settlement discussions and therefore may have actual notice 

of the lawsuit, Plaintiffs have not alleged actual notice as to any of the individual defendants or 

demonstrated the remaining good cause factors. Additionally, although the court issued summons 

as to all Defendants on April 15, 2010, Plaintiffs have not alleged any attempted service. The 

Court therefore concludes that Plaintiffs have not demonstrated good cause and an extension of 

time is not mandatory under Rule 4(m). 

 Absent good cause, district courts have broad, though not unlimited, discretion to extend 

time for service. Efaw v. Williams, 473 F.3d 1038, 1041 (9th Cir. 2007). The Ninth Circuit has not 

set forth specific factors to consider in making discretionary determinations under Rule 4(m). In 

 

1

 Although Plaintiffs seek an extension of time to serve the Complaint, which is governed by Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 4(m), 

the Memorandum of Points and Authorities submitted appears to rely on California Code of Civil Procedure § 415.50. 

Plaintiffs correctly state that Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 4(e) permits service on individuals pursuant to the law of the state where 

the district court is located. However, Rule 4(e) pertains to the manner of service, rather than the time for service, and 

Cal. CCP § 415.50 sets out the requirements for service by publication, which is of no relevance to Plaintiffs’ motion. 

Case 5:10-cv-01615-LHK Document 25 Filed 08/20/10 Page 2 of 3
3 

Case No.: 10-CV-01615-LHK 

ORDER EXTENDING TIME TO SERVE SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT 

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 

United States District Court 

For the Northern District of California 

re Sheehan, 253 F.3d at 513. “In making extension decisions under Rule 4(m) a district court may 

consider factors ‘like a statute of limitations bar, prejudice to the defendant, actual notice of a 

lawsuit, and eventual service.’” Efaw v. Williams, 473 F.3d 1038, 1041 (9th Cir. 2007) (quoting 

Troxell v. Fedders of N. Am., Inc., 160 F.3d 381, 383 (7th Cir. 1998)). Courts may also consider 

whether the plaintiff has substantially complied with the service requirements. Tyson v. City of 

Sunnyvale, 159 F.R.D. 528, 530 (N.D.Cal. 1995). Plaintiffs have not substantially complied with 

Rule 4(m), nor have they alleged that they face an impending statute of limitations bar. 

Nonetheless, it appears that at least one Defendant has actual notice of the case and that settlement 

discussions are ongoing. Thus, at this time, the Court finds that a limited extension of the time for 

service will best serve the interests of “the just, speedy and efficient disposition,” id., of Plaintiffs’ 

claims. The Court will grant an extension of an additional 30 days to serve the Summons and 

Complaint. 

II. CONCLUSION 

 For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs’ motion to extend time for serving the summons and 

complaint is granted. Plaintiffs are HEREBY ORDERED to properly serve all Defendants no later 

than September 20, 2010, and to file proof of service with the Court no later than September 27, 

2010. 

 The Court shall not grant any further extensions, and if Plaintiffs fail to comply with the 

Court's deadline, this matter shall be dismissed. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 20, 2010 _________________________________ 

 LUCY H. KOH 

 United States District Judge 

Case 5:10-cv-01615-LHK Document 25 Filed 08/20/10 Page 3 of 3