Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-00400/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-00400-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 840
Nature of Suit: Trademark
Cause of Action: 15:1125 Trademark Infringement (Lanham Act)

---

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

 Plaintiff seeks a “30” day extension, to “September 22, 2010.” However, September

22, 2010 would be a three month extension of the service deadline.

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Diners Club International Ltd., 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Arvin Poole, 

Jane Doe Poole,

SHAARP Ventures, LLC,

Gwen Cash,

John Doe Cash,

GDC Enterprises,

GDCash, LLC,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 10-0400-PHX-JAT

ORDER

The Complaint in this case was filed on February 23, 2010. Defendants Gwen Cash,

John Doe Cash, GDC Enterprises, and GDCash, LLC, were dismissed by a stipulated-to

judgment on June 10, 2010. Default was entered against Defendants Arvin Poole and

SHAARP Ventures, LLC on May 14, 2010. The only other Defendant, Jane Doe Poole, has

never been served.

Service was due on Jane Doe Poole by June 23, 2010. On August 23, 2010, Plaintiff

moved to extend time to serve Mrs. Poole1

 and argued that Plaintiff had shown “good cause”

Case 2:10-cv-00400-JAT Document 26 Filed 09/01/10 Page 1 of 2
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 -

why it did not timely serve Mrs. Poole.

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(1)(B), the Court may extend an expired

deadline, “if the party failed to act because of excusable neglect.” Plaintiff argues that it

allowed the service deadline to expire due to a clerical error. The Court does not find a

clerical error to be excusable neglect. Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that the motion to extend time to serve Jane Doe Poole (Doc. 25)

is denied.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Jane Doe Poole is dismissed, without prejudice, for

failure to timely serve.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 30 days of the date of this Order, Plaintiff

shall either move for default judgment with respect to the remaining Defendants or show

cause why this case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute under Federal Rule of

Civil Procedure 41(b).

DATED this 1st day of September, 2010.

Case 2:10-cv-00400-JAT Document 26 Filed 09/01/10 Page 2 of 2