Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
N.D. Cal.Procedural orderFiled Jan. 21, 2025

Innovative Sports Management Inc v. Ruiz Arias

Judge
P. Casey Pit
Docket
5:24-cv-06353
Court
U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
Pages
2
Civil Procedure
In one sentence

In Innovative Sports Management Inc. v. Ruiz Arias, Judge P. Casey Pit denied an extension and dismissed the case without prejudice for late service.

Who this affects

Innovative Sports Management Inc.’s case against Jeanette Costanza Ruiz Arias and 818 Sports Bar & Grill, Inc. was dismissed without prejudice because service occurred after the Rule 4(m) deadline and no good cause or excusable neglect was shown.

What happened

Innovative Sports Management Inc. sued Jeanette Costanza Ruiz Arias and 818 Sports Bar & Grill, Inc. The complaint was filed on September 10, 2024, and the defendants were served in January 2025, after the 90-day deadline.

Innovative Sports Management asked for more time to serve the defendants but gave no explanation for the delay. The court found that the company had not shown the required good cause or excusable neglect.

Judge P. Casey Pit denied the motion to extend the service deadline and dismissed the case without prejudice. The dismissal was based on the late service, not on the underlying claims.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Innovative Sports Management Inc v. Ruiz Arias · No. 5:24-cv-06353
Judge
P. Casey Pit
Date
Jan. 21, 2025

Background

Innovative Sports Management Inc. filed its complaint on September 10, 2024, against Jeanette Costanza Ruiz Arias and 818 Sports Bar & Grill, Inc. The company served 818 Sports Bar & Grill on January 6, 2025, and Ruiz Arias on January 8, 2025.

Service Deadline

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) generally requires a plaintiff to serve the complaint within 90 days after filing. If service is late, the court must dismiss the action without prejudice or order service by a specified deadline. If the plaintiff shows good cause, the court must extend the service period. The opinion explains that good cause requires, at a minimum, excusable neglect, and may also require showing actual notice, lack of prejudice to the defendant, and severe prejudice to the plaintiff if the case is dismissed.

Court’s Ruling

Innovative Sports Management moved for an extension of time but offered no explanation for the delay. The court therefore found that it had not shown good cause or excusable neglect. Judge P. Casey Pit denied the motion to extend the time for service and dismissed the case without prejudice. The order did not decide the merits of the claims.

Effect of the Order

The case was dismissed without prejudice because the defendants were not served within the required time and the plaintiff did not justify the delay. The opinion does not state whether the plaintiff later filed another action.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.