United States v. Salazar ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Case No. 1:23-cv-01282-CDB 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING EX PARTE APPLICATION TO EXTEND TIME FOR 13 v. SERVICE OF PROCESS 14 JAVIER SALAZAR, JR., et al. (Doc. 7) 15 Defendants. Deadline: January 5, 2024 16 17 18 19 On August 28, 2023, Plaintiff United States of America initiated this action with its filing 20 of a complaint against Defendants Javier Salazar, Jr., Javier Salazr, Sr., and Ricardo Covarrubias. 21 (Doc. 1). That same date, the Clerk of Court issued summonses and the Court entered an Order 22 setting a mandatory scheduling conference. (Docs. 2, 3). The Order directed Plaintiff to 23 “diligently pursue service of summons and complaint” and “promptly file proofs of service.” 24 The Order further advised Plaintiff that failure to diligently prosecute this action “may result in 25 the imposition of sanctions, including the dismissal of unserved defendants.” 26 With respect to service, where a plaintiff fails to serve a defendant within 90 days after 27 the complaint is filed, Rule 4(m), Fed. R. Civ. P. requires the Court to dismiss the action or order 28 that service be made within a specified time upon a showing by the plaintiff of “good cause” for 1 || the delay. See In re Sheehan, 253 F.3d 507, 512 (9th Cir. 2001). 2 On October 26, 2023, Plaintiff filed an ex parte application to continue the scheduling 3 || conference and extend the time for service of the summons and complaint. (Doc. 5). On 4 || October 30, 2023, the Court granted Plaintiffs request resetting the scheduling conference to 5 || January 29, 2024. (Doc. 6). Further, the Court ordered Plaintiff to file either summones returned 6 || executed as to each Defendant or a status report setting forth good cause for any requested 7 || service extension by December 1, 2023. Id. 8 Pending before the Court is Plaintiffs ex parte application to extend the time for service 9 || of the summons and complaint. (Doc. 7). The application is supported by the declaration of 10 || counsel for Plaintiff in which counsel attests that Plaintiff mailed to each Defendant waivers of 11 || service, attempted to contact Defendants and attempted to effectuate personal service upon 12 || Defendants via process server on multiple occasions. Jd. at 3-4. Counsel for Plaintiff 13 || representsPlaintiff will continue to attempt personal service on Defendants and pursue alternative 14 || methods service upon Defendants if unsuccessful. Jd. Counsel for Plaintiff requests that the 15 || Court extend the time for service until January 5, 2024. 16 Accordingly, in light of Plaintiffs representations and good cause appearing, IT IS 17 ||} HEREBY ORDERED: 18 1. Pursuant to Rule 4(m), Fed. R. Civ. P., no later than January 5, 2024, Plaintiff 19 SHALL FILE either summonses returned executed as to each Defendant or a 20 status report setting forth good cause for any requested service extension; and 21 2. The January 29, 2024 scheduling conference is reset to February 22, 2024, at 22 10:00 AM. before Magistrate Judge Christopher D. Baker. The parties are 23 reminded of their obligation to file a joint scheduling report at least one week 24 prior to the conference. (Doc. 3). 25 || IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: _November 22, 2023 | hr br 27 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 28