You're viewing Docket Item 23 from the case Arant v. JP Morgan Chase et al. View the full docket and case details.

Download this document:




Case 2:12-cv-01386-JCM-GWF Document 23 Filed 07/11/13 Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

FRANK ARANT,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
__________________________________________)

vs.
J. P. MORGAN CHASE, INC., et al.,

Plaintiff,

Defendants.

Case No. 2:12-cv-01386-JCM-GWF
ORDER

This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Frank Arant’s (“Plaintiff”) Motion for

Extension of Time to File Proof of Service (#22), filed on July 8, 2013.

Plaintiff filed his original Complaint (#1) on August 6, 2012, and proof of service was
originally due by December 4, 2012. On December 3, 2012, Plaintiff filed his first Motion to
Extend Time to File Proof of Service (#5), in which he represented an impending Ninth Circuit
opinion may require amendment of his Complaint. The Court entered an Order (#36) on December
4, 2012 extending the deadline to January 4, 2013. Plaintiff filed a second Motion to Extend (#7)
on January 6, 2013, making the same representation. The Court granted the Motion (#7) and
extended the deadline to February 11, 2013. See January 11, 2013 Order, Doc. #8. Plaintiff filed a
third Motion to Extend (#9) on February 13, 2013. The Court ordered Plaintiff to file a supplement
detailing the case number and briefing schedule of the subject Ninth Circuit appeal. See February
14, 2013 Order, Doc. #10. Plaintiff filed his Supplement (#11) on February 16, 2013, and the
Court again extended the deadline for proof of service to March 22, 2013. See February 20, 2013
Order, Doc. #12. Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint (#13) on March 14, 2013. To date, no
proof of service has been filed as to any defendants.


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

Case 2:12-cv-01386-JCM-GWF Document 23 Filed 07/11/13 Page 2 of 3

Service of process on a defendant must be made within 120 days of filing a complaint. See

Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). The filing of an amended complaint does not restart the 120-day period
provided by Rule 4(m), however, “except as to those defendants newly added in the amended
complaint.” Carr v. Int’l Game Technology, 770 F.Supp.2d 1080, 1100 (D. Nev. 2011) (citing
Bolden v. City of Topeka, 441 F.3d 1129, 1148 (10th Cir. 2006)). If service is not timely made, but
the plaintiff shows good cause for the defective service, courts must extend the time period for
service. In re Sheehan, 253 F.3d 507, 512 (9th Cir. 2001). “At a minimum, ‘good cause’ means
excusable neglect.” Boudette v. Barnette, 923 F.2d 754, 756 (9th Cir. 1991). In the absence of
good cause, courts still retain the discretion to grant an extension. Mann v. Am. Airlines, 324 F.3d
1088, 1090 (9th Cir.2003).

Here, all the defendants in the original and amended complaints are identical, and Plaintiff’s

Amended Complaint added no new defendants. Therefore, the filing of the Amended Complaint
did not restart the Rule 4(m) deadline, and proof of service was due by March 22, 2013. See
February 20, 2013 Order, Doc. #12. The Court accordingly construes the instant Motion as
seeking an extension of the March 22, 2013 deadline. In an effort to show good cause for the
defective service, Plaintiff merely states that he “encountered difficulty” serving Defendant Express
Capital Lending. Plaintiff makes no representations regarding the defective service on the other
defendants in this case, and does not detail the extent to which he attempted to effectuate service.
Plaintiff’s original Complaint was filed nearly a year ago, and the majority of the defendants named
are well-known national corporate entities. The Court therefore finds that Plaintiff has not shown
good cause to extend the proof-of-service deadline. Furthermore, in light of the three previous
extensions already granted, the Court declines to exercise its discretion to extend the deadline
absent good cause. Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Extend Time to File Proof of

Service (#22) is denied.
...
...
...

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

Case 2:12-cv-01386-JCM-GWF Document 23 Filed 07/11/13 Page 3 of 3

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, within 14 days of the date of this Order, Plaintiff shall

file a response to this Order showing cause why the Court should not dismiss the Amended
Complaint.

DATED this 11th day of July, 2013.

______________________________________
GEORGE FOLEY, JR.
United States Magistrate Judge

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