Innovative Sports Management, Inc. v. Huaman

Background Innovative Sports Management, Inc. filed its complaint on August 29, 2024. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m), the plaintiff generally had 90 days to serve the complaint on Zenon Huaman. The company served Huaman on December 2, 2024, after that deadline. It then moved for an extension of time but offered no explanation for the delay.

Legal standard Rule 4(m) requires a court to extend the service deadline for an appropriate period when a plaintiff shows good cause for failing to serve the defendant on time. The opinion explains that good cause requires, at minimum, excusable neglect. The court considered the factors relevant to excusable neglect, including possible prejudice, the length and reason for the delay, and whether the plaintiff acted in good faith. The opinion also identified factors concerning actual notice and prejudice to the parties.

Ruling The court held that Innovative Sports Management had not shown good cause or excusable neglect because it provided no explanation for the late service. Judge P. Casey Pitts denied the motion to extend the time for service and dismissed the case without prejudice.