Opinion ID: 151784
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Discussion (1).Dismissal for Failure to Timely Serve

Text: We begin with the district court's decision to dismiss the Gerenas' claims against Yale and Korb for failure to effect timely service under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m). Rule 4(m) provides: If a defendant is not served within 120 days after the complaint is filed, the courton motion or on its own after notice to the plaintiffmust dismiss the action without prejudice against that defendant or order that service be made within a specified time. But if the plaintiff shows good cause for the failure, the court must extend the time for service for an appropriate period. We have interpreted this rule to give wide latitude to courts in deciding when to grant extensions on time to serve, including permitting courts to grant extensions even absent good cause. See Zapata, 502 F.3d at 196. Because we find here that the district court was within the bounds of its discretion in determining that the Gerenas had neither sought nor received an extension of time to serve Yale, we affirm its dismissal of the case against Yale under Rule 4(m). However, for the reasons explained below, it was an abuse of discretion to find that plaintiffs' time to serve Korb had not been extended by Judge Sand prior to transfer.