Free Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief - District Court of California - California

Case 3:07-cv-04946-JSW

Document 43

Filed 01/23/2008

Page 1 of 2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 10 MEI-FANG LISA ZHANG, et al. Plaintiffs, v. WEI-MAN RAYMOND TSE, et al. Defendants. ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE IN PART ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO SERVE AND FOR ISSUANCE OF SUBPOENAS / 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). Plaintiffs filed their administrative motion on January 10, 2008, in which they advised the Court that 120 days would expire on January 22, 2008. Plaintiffs also submitted the declaration of Stephen S. Wu, in which Plaintiffs detail the efforts they have made to effect service on Defendants Wong and Defendant Wu. The Court finds that Plaintiffs' This matter comes before the Court upon consideration of Plaintiffs' administrative motion for an extension of time to serve Defendants Theresa Wong and James Wu. There has been no response filed. Plaintiffs also request that the Court grant them leave to issue subpoenas to assist them in obtaining information about these Defendants' whereabouts. 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. No. C 07-04946 JSW IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

12 13 14 15

Case 3:07-cv-04946-JSW

Document 43

Filed 01/23/2008

Page 2 of 2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

have shown good cause for an extension, and Plaintiffs shall have until March 31, 2008 to effect service on these Defendants. Plaintiffs also ask the Court to issue subpoenas and to allow them to conduct discovery to assist them in their efforts to locate Defendants Wong and Wu. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(e) provides for personal service but also permits service by "following state law for serving a summons in an action brought in courts of general jurisdiction in the state where the district court is located or where service is made." Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(e)(1). It is clear from Plaintiffs' motion and counsel's declaration that Plaintiffs have been making diligent efforts to serve Defendants Wong and Wu personally.1 However, Plaintiffs have not set forth any reasons why an alternative form of service is not viable. Accordingly, the Court DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiffs' request for the issuance of subpoenas and for discovery, pending a showing that alternative forms of service are not viable. Plaintiffs are HEREBY ORDERED to serve a copy of this Order on all Defendants. IT IS SO ORDERED.

United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Dated: January 23, 2008 JEFFREY S. WHITE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Plaintiffs attest that Defendant Wu works at a DMV office. Plaintiffs do not explain why they are unable to serve him at his place of employment.
1

2