Jenrett v. McPartlin ( 2024 )

1 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 4 5 MELISA JENRETT, Case No.: 2:24-cv-00002-APG-NJK 6 Plaintiff, ORDER 7 v. 8 CLARK COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT, et 9 al., 10 Defendants. 11 On November 7, 2023, Plaintiff initiated this suit in the Eighth Judicial District Court of 12 Clark County, Nevada. Docket No. 1 at 6. On January 2, 2024, Defendant Kevin McPartlin 13 removed the action to this Court. Docket No. 1. Defendant McPartlin was subsequently dismissed 14 from this action and no other parties have entered an appearance in this matter. See Docket. 15 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4 governs the issuance of summons and service of process. 16 Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m) provides that: 17 If a defendant is not served within 90 days after the complaint is filed, the court – on motion or on its own after notice to the plaintiff 18 – must dismiss the action without prejudice against that defendant or order that service be made within a specified time. But if the 19 plaintiff shows good cause for the failure, the Court must extend the 20 time for service for an appropriate period. 21 To date, there has been no proof of service filed as to Clark County School District, Sara 22 Friedman, Paul Hernandez, or David Monroe.1 23 Accordingly, Plaintiff is hereby ORDERED to provide proof of service by March 21, 24 2024, as to the above-named parties. Service on the parties must have taken place prior to the 25 1 Defendant McPartlin’s petition for removal states that “[u]pon information and belief, as 26 of the filing of this Notice of Removal, no other Defendants listed by the Plaintiff in the caption of the Complaint have been served.” Docket No. 1 at 2. Where any defendant has not been served 27 with process or in which the service has not been perfected prior to removal, “such process may be completed or new process issued in the same manner as in cases originally filed” in this Court. 28 See 28 U.S.C. § 1448; see also Beecher v. Wallace, 381 F.2d 372, 373 (9th Cir. 1967). 1} expiration of the time limit set forth in Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(m), or good cause must be shown as to why 2|| such service was not made in that period. 3 Failure to comply with this order may result in a recommendation of dismissal to the 4] District Judge as to said parties. 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 6 Dated: February 22, 2024 □□ Zo Nancy J. Koppe* 8 United States Magistrate Judge 9 10 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28