Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-01473/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-01473-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Christine Corona
Plaintiff
Laurie Gatie
Defendant
Nathan Horton
Defendant
Kevin Jones
Defendant
Stacey Montgomery
Defendant
Marian Tweddell
Defendant
Michele Verderosa
Defendant
Brandon Vinson
Defendant

Document Text:

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

CHRISTINE CORONA, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

MICHELE VERDEROSA, ET AL., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:14-cv-1473-MCE-AC 

ORDER 

On June 20, 2014, plaintiff Christine Corona filed her complaint against defendants 

Michele Verderosa, Brandon Vinson, Kevin Jones, Laurie Gatie, and Nathan Horton (“Original 

Defendants”). ECF No. 1. Summons issued, but no proof of service has been filed documenting 

service within 120 days as required by Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Fed. 

R. of Civ. P. 4(l), (m). Instead, on October 15, 2014 plaintiff filed a first amended complaint 

(“FAC”) that included two additional defendants, Stacey Montgomery and Marian Tweddell. 

ECF No. 4. 

Plaintiff is informed that the filing of an amended complaint does not restart the 120-day 

service period against a defendant named in the original complaint. Rather, the 120 period runs 

from the filing of the amended complaint only as to newly added defendants. See, e.g., Bolden v. 

City of Topeka, Kansas, 441 F.3d 1129, 1148 (10th Cir. 2006); see also McGuckin v. United 

States, 918 F.2d 811, 813 (9th Cir. 2006). It appears that the originally-named defendants were 

Case 2:14-cv-01473-MCE-AC Document 6 Filed 10/21/14 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

not served within 120 days of the initial filing of the claims against them. Accordingly, those 

defendants may be subject to dismissal. Rule 4(m). 

However, the 120-day deadline may be extended by the court for good cause, id., which 

includes excusable neglect. See Boudette v. Barnette, 923 F.2d 754, 756 (9th Cir. 1991). The 

court may extend time for service retroactively after the 120-day service period has expired. 

Mann v. American Airlines, 324 F.3d 1088, 1090 (9th Cir. 2003). If plaintiff served Michele 

Verderosa, Brandon Vinson, Kevin Jones, Laurie Gatie, and Nathan Horton with the original 

complaint within 120 days of its filing, she must file proof of service establishing the fact. Rule 

4(l). If any defendant(s) waived service, the waiver(s) must be filed instead. Rule 4(d). If 

plaintiff did not serve those defendants and requires additional time to do so, she must explain 

why service was not made within the 120-day period. In that case, if the court finds good cause, 

it will authorize service of the superseding FAC on all defendants. Plaintiff is reminded that the 

defendants newly-named in the FAC must be served with both the summons and the amended 

complaint within 120 days of October 15, 2014. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that within 14 days of the date of this order 

plaintiff shall file either (1) proof of service of the summons and complaint on the Original 

Defendants (or waivers of service if service has been waived), or (2) a request for additional time 

to effect service. Such a request must be supported by an explanation why additional time is 

needed. 

DATED: October 20, 2014 

Case 2:14-cv-01473-MCE-AC Document 6 Filed 10/21/14 Page 2 of 2