Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-02922/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-02922-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights 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

The City Defendants are the City of Berkeley, Zachary D. Cowan, Laura McKinney,

Mark Rhoades, Joan MacQuarrie, Matthew LeGrant, Patrick Emmons, Greg Heidenreich,

and Malcolm D. Prince.

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RASH GHOSH,

Plaintiff,

 v.

CITY OF BERKELEY, et al.,

Defendants. /

No. C-14-2922 MMC

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION TO EXTEND TIME TO SERVE

DEFENDANTS; DIRECTIONS TO

PLAINTIFF

Before the Court is plaintiff Rash Ghosh’s “Motion to Extend Time to Serve

Defendants,” filed November 21, 2014. The City Defendants1 have filed opposition, in

which Berkeley Housing Authority and Tia Ingram have joined. Plaintiff has not filed a

reply. Having read and considered the papers filed in support of and in opposition to the

motion, the Court deems the matter appropriate for determination on the parties’ respective

written submissions, VACATES the hearing scheduled for January 16, 2015, and rules as

follows.

Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a defendant must be “served within 120

days after the complaint is filed,” and, if not, the district court must “dismiss the action

without prejudice against that defendant or order that service be made within a specified

Case 3:14-cv-02922-MMC Document 85 Filed 01/12/15 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

Plaintiff named thirteen defendants in his initial complaint, and, in an Amended

Complaint filed October 22, 2014, named three additional defendants. Where a defendant

is first named in an amended complaint, the 120-day period set forth in Rule 4(m) begins to

run on the date the amended complaint is filed. See McGuckin v. United States, 918 F.2d

811, 813 (9th Cir. 1990). Because the 120-day period to serve the three defendants first

named in the Amended Complaint has not yet expired, the Court construes the instant

motion as a request to extend the deadline to serve the thirteen defendants named in the

initial complaint, each of whom was renamed in the Amended Complaint.

3

In support of his motion, plaintiff submitted a declaration in which he states he has

various medical conditions, such as “vision loss” and “joint pain” (see Pl.’s Decl. ¶ 5), but

does not explain how such ailments precluded him from obtaining the services of a process

server and directing said individual(s) to serve defendants within the 120-day period set

forth in Rule 4(m).

4

The City Defendants also argue that the service made on them was deficient for

reasons other than timeliness, e.g., that the summons did not list the names of all

defendants. Any challenge to the sufficiency of service, however, must be made in either a

“responsive pleading,” i.e., an answer, or in a “motion.” See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b); see also

Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h) (setting forth circumstances under which defense based on

insufficient service is deemed waived). Consequently, the Court does not further consider

the sufficiency of service at this time.

2

time.” See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m).

Plaintiff filed his initial complaint on June 24, 2014, and did not effectuate service of

process on any defendant prior to the expiration of the 120-day period. By the instant

motion, plaintiff states he effectuated service of process on all defendants as of November

19, 2014, and requests the Court extend the deadline to November 19, 2014, i.e., a date

149 days after June 24, 2014.2

In their opposition, the City Defendants argue plaintiff has failed to demonstrate

good cause for his failure to complete service of process within 120 days of the filing of the

initial complaint. Even assuming, arguendo, plaintiff has not shown good cause for the

extension sought,3

 a district court has discretion to extend the deadline in the absence of

such showing. See Efaw v. Williams, 473 F.3d 1038, 1040 (9th Cir. 2007) (holding Rule

4(m) “permits the district court to grant an extension even in the absence of good cause”). 

Here, in light of the relatively short length of the requested extension, and given that the

City Defendants had actual notice of the lawsuit shortly after the 120-date period expired

and do not assert any prejudice from the delay in service, the Court finds it appropriate to

extend the service deadline to November 19, 2014, nunc pro tunc.4

Case 3:14-cv-02922-MMC Document 85 Filed 01/12/15 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

5

Plaintiff has filed two documents indicating that, prior to November 19, 2014, he had

requested McGrew waive service. (See Docket, Documents No. 38, 40.) Plaintiff,

however, has not filed a waiver of service, and in the absence of a waiver from McGrew, is

required to file proof of service of the summons and complaint. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(d)(4).

3

Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion is hereby GRANTED.

Lastly, as noted above, plaintiff states he effectuated service on all defendants as of

November 19, 2014. The Court’s review of the docket, however, indicates that plaintiff has

not filed proof of service of the summons and complaint on defendant Benjamin McGrew

(“McGrew”), who was named in the initial complaint and who has not, to date, appeared in

the instant action.5

Accordingly, plaintiff is hereby DIRECTED to file, no later than January 23, 2015,

proof of service as to McGrew.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 12, 2015

 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:14-cv-02922-MMC Document 85 Filed 01/12/15 Page 3 of 3