Opinion
23-CV-972-JO-SBC
10-24-2023
GARCIA, Plaintiff, v. MARRIOTT HOTELS INTERNATIONAL; BIANCA LOMELY; SAN DIEGO POLICE DEPARTMENT, Defendants.
ORDER DISMISSING CASE WITHOUT PREJUDICE
JINSOOK OHTA UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Plaintiff filed this negligence and breach of contract case on May 25, 2023. Dkt. 1. Defendant Marriott was served with fee complaint that same day. Id. The Clerk of Court issued summons on May 26, 2023. Dkt. 2. However, Plaintiff did not serve the complaint or summons on Defendant Lomely and Defendant San Diego Police Department. Additionally, he did not serve the summons on Defendant Marriott. On September 29, 2023, the Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause why the case should not be dismissed for failure to timely serve Defendants as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m). Dkt. 4. Plaintiffs response was due on October 6, 2023. Id. As of October 24, 2023, Plaintiff has not served Defendants or responded to fee Order to Show Cause.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) requires a plaintiff to serve the complaint within 90 days of filing. If a plaintiff fails to do so, the Court must dismiss the case without prejudice "unless the Court finds good cause for an extension of time." Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(m). In the Ninth Circuit, "[a]t a minimum, 'good cause' means excusable neglect." In re Sheehan, 253 F.3d 507, 512 (9th Cir. 2001) (quotingBoudette v. Barnette, 923 F.2d 754, 756 (9th Cir. 1991)). Courts have also interpreted "good cause" to mean that "service has been attempted but not completed, that plaintiff was confused about the requirements of service, or that plaintiff was prevented from serving defendants by factors beyond his control." AF Holdings LLC v. Does 1-135, 2012 WL 1038671, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 27, 2012) (citation omitted).
Here, it has been 152 days since Plaintiff filed this action, and the Defendants have not yet been served in accordance with Rule 4. Plaintiff has not responded to the Court's Order to Show Cause as to why he has not served Defendants, nor has he otherwise provided any justification for his failure to serve. Since Plaintiff has not established that his failure to serve was a result of excusable neglect or other significant hardship, the Court finds that he has not shown good cause for an extension of time as required by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Accordingly, the Court must dismiss the action pursuant to Rule 4(m).
For the above reasons, the Court DISMISSES Plaintiffs case without prejudice. The Court DIRECTS the clerk to close the case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.