Johnson v. Dizdar

Background

Scott Johnson moved for administrative relief seeking a 90-day extension of the time to serve Mary Ann Dizdar. The service deadline was January 25, 2021. Johnson submitted documents showing that a contractor had attempted service approximately eight times and that Dizdar’s counsel knew about the lawsuit.

Court’s analysis

The court explained that it must extend the service period when a plaintiff shows “good cause,” which at a minimum includes excusable neglect. The court also considered whether Dizdar had actual notice, whether she would be prejudiced, and whether Johnson would be severely prejudiced if the complaint were dismissed.

The court found that Johnson had not established good cause. He did not explain how he would be prejudiced, including whether a statute of limitations would prevent him from filing the complaint again. The court also found that Johnson had not shown that Dizdar or her counsel had taken affirmative steps to frustrate service. Although counsel wrote that service could be accepted by mail, the court found that statement ambiguous, and Dizdar did not return the service-waiver form.

Ruling

Despite finding no good cause, the court exercised its discretion to grant a shorter extension. Dizdar had actual notice of the lawsuit, there was no evidence that she would be prejudiced by a 30-day delay, and Johnson had diligently attempted service.

The court GRANTED IN PART Johnson’s motion for administrative relief requesting an extension of time to complete service. Johnson was ordered to properly serve Dizdar within 30 days of the order, including the summons, complaint, scheduling order, General Order No. 56 and its Second Amended Notice, and any supplemental filings required by Civil Local Rule 4-2. The court stated that no further extensions would be granted.