Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-02043/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-02043-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 140
Nature of Suit: Negotiable Instruments
Cause of Action: 15:1601 Truth in Lending

---

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

 The caption hereinafter should be amended to reflect the 1

Dismissal of Defendants Elite Mortgage & Associates, James Ray Wall,

Jr., and Randall Gilbert.

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FRANCISCO PEREZ, )

) 02:09-cv-02043-GEB-KJM

Plaintiff, ) 

) ORDER DISMISSING UNSERVED

v. ) DEFENDANTS

)

GMAC MORTGAGE; KAY-CO ) 

INVESTMENTS DBA PRO30 FUNDING;) 

ETS SERVICES, LLC; MORTGAGE )

ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION )

SYSTEMS, INC.; ELITE MORTGAGE )

& ASSOCIATES; JAMES RAY WALL, )

JR.; RANDALL GILBERT; ADAM ) 

LANCASTER, )

1

)

Defendants. )

)

On December 8, 2009 an order issued notifying Plaintiff

that “under Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

(“Rule 4(m)”) that “Defendants Elite Mortgage & Associates, James

Ray Wall, Jr., and Randall Gilbert could be dismissed as defendants

in this action . . . unless Plaintiff provides proof of service

and/or ‘shows good cause for the failure’ to serve these

[D]efendants . . . in a filing due no later than 4:00 p.m. on

December 14, 2009.” (Docket No. 18)(emphasis in the original). 

Case 2:09-cv-02043-GEB -KJM Document 33 Filed 02/04/10 Page 1 of 5
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

Plaintiff responded to the December 8, 2009 Rule 4(m) notice three

days late, in a filing in which he requested “an additional 30 days

within which to effect service on these Defendants” because he had

“‘bad’ addresses” for them. (Docket No. 21). That time period has

past, and no proof of service has been filed showing these

defendants have been served.

“Rule 4(m) requires a two-step analysis in deciding

whether or not to extend the prescribed time period for the service

of a complaint.” In re Sheehan, 253 F.3d 507, 512 (9th Cir.

2001)(citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m)); see also Lemoge v. United

States, 587 F.3d 1188, 1198 (9th Cir. 2009)(outlining the “two

avenues for relief” provided by Rule 4(m)). “First, upon a showing

of good cause for the defective service, the court must extend the

time period. Second, if there is no good cause, the court has

discretion to dismiss without prejudice or to extend the time

period.” Id. 

“Good cause to avoid dismissal may be demonstrated by

establishing, at a minimum, excusable neglect.” Lemoge, 587 F.3d

1188, 1198 n.3 (9th Cir. 2009)(citing Boudette v. Barnette, 923

F.2d 754, 756 (9th Cir. 1991)). However, to bring excusable

neglect “to the level of good cause”“a plaintiff may be required to

show the following 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.” In re Sheehan, 253 F.3d at 512 (citing

Boudette, 923 F.2d at 756).

Plaintiff has failed to show good cause for failure to 

Case 2:09-cv-02043-GEB -KJM Document 33 Filed 02/04/10 Page 2 of 5
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

serve Defendants Elite Mortgage & Associates, James Ray Wall, Jr.,

and Randall Gilbert. Plaintiff did not address any of the good

cause factors in his responses to the Court’s Rule 4(m) notice. 

Plaintiff’s only justification for failure to timely serve the

Defendants was that he had “‘bad’ addresses.” Plaintiff provided

no explanation concerning when Plaintiff first attempted to serve

each of the unserved Defendants, when Plaintiff realized the

addresses were “‘bad,’” or why discovery of the correct addresses

was not conducted before expiration of the Rule 4(m) 120 day

service period or during the additional time Plaintiff has already

had to locate these Defendants. 

Further, Plaintiff’s conclusory response does not provide

sufficient information for determination whether his failure to

effect service resulted from “professional incompetence,” “an

easily manufactured excuse incapable of verification of the court,”

“a complete lack of diligence,” or “inadvertence despite counsel’s

substantial good faith efforts towards compliance.” Dominic v.

Hess Oil V.I. Corp., 841 F.2d 513, 517 (3d Cir. 1988). “Courts

that have considered this issue . . . agree that counsel’s

inadvertent failure or half-hearted efforts to serve a defendant

within the statutory period does not constitute good cause.” 

Friedman v. Estate of Presser, 929 F.2d 1151, 1157 (6th Cir. 1991). 

Plaintiff clearly has not demonstrated that good cause justifies

his failure to serve the unserved Defendants.

Even though Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate good

cause, the issue remains whether the Court should exercise its

discretion and provide Plaintiff with additional time to serve the

unserved Defendants. See Efaw v. Williams, 473 F.3d 1038, 1041

Case 2:09-cv-02043-GEB -KJM Document 33 Filed 02/04/10 Page 3 of 5
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

(9th Cir. 2007) (stating that Rule 4(m) “permits the district court

to grant an extension even in the absence of good cause” (emphasis

in original)). The Ninth Circuit has explained the scope of the

district court’s discretion under Rule 4(m) as follows:

District courts have broad discretion to extend

time for service under Rule 4(m). . . . On its

face, Rule 4(m) does not tie the hands of the

district court after the 120-day period has

expired. Rather, Rule 4(m) explicitly permits

a district court to grant an extension of time

to serve the complaint after the 120-day

period. However, no court has ruled that the

discretion is limitless. In making extension

decisions under Rule 4(m) a district court may

consider factors like statute of limitations

bar, prejudice to the defendant, actual notice

of a lawsuit, and eventual service.

Id. (quotations and citations omitted)(emphasis added).

Plaintiff has not provided the Court with a persuasive

reason for why it should exercise its discretion by extending the

time period in which Plaintiff may serve any unserved Defendants. 

Nor has Plaintiff suggested that any applicable statute of

limitations will bar his claims, or that an unserved Defendant has

actual notice of the lawsuit. Since Plaintiff has not provided

sufficient justification for his inability to timely serve the

unserved Defendants, and has not provided facts persuading the

Court to exercise its discretion in favor of the extension of the

service period, the Court declines to exercise its discretion under

Rule 4(m) to further extend the time for service.

Therefore, the unserved Defendants Elite Mortgage & 

//

//

//

//

Case 2:09-cv-02043-GEB -KJM Document 33 Filed 02/04/10 Page 4 of 5
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

5

Associates, James Ray Wall, Jr., and Randall Gilbert are dismissed

as defendants without prejudice under Rule 4(m).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 3, 2010

 

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:09-cv-02043-GEB -KJM Document 33 Filed 02/04/10 Page 5 of 5