GS Holistic, LLC v. Ashes Plus Nine
- Yvonne Rogers
- 4:22-cv-07101
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In GS Holistic v. Ashes Plus Nine, Judge Rogers granted more time for service but denied the case-management extension as moot.
GS Holistic, LLC and the defendants Ashes Plus Nine and Gaizan N Alreyashi; the order addressed service deadlines and case-management scheduling.
What happened
In GS Holistic, LLC v. Ashes Plus Nine, GS Holistic asked for more time to serve the defendants and to file a case-management statement. The original 90-day service deadline was February 9, 2023.
The court found that counsel’s failure to save service documents because of staff turnover was not a sufficient reason for missing the deadline. But because the defendants had been served, the court granted the third request for an extension and treated the completed service as timely through March 13, 2023.
Judge Rogers denied the request for more time to file the case-management statement as moot because no conference was then scheduled. The court set an initial case-management conference for April 27, 2023, and required the statement by April 20, 2023.
The detailed version
- GS Holistic, LLC v. Ashes Plus Nine · No. 4:22-cv-07101
- Yvonne Rogers
- Mar. 10, 2023
Background
GS Holistic, LLC asked for an extension of time to file a case-management statement and filed a third motion seeking additional time to serve and complete service on the defendants. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) generally gave GS Holistic 90 days from filing its complaint to serve the defendants. Because the complaint was filed on November 11, 2022, the service deadline was February 9, 2023.
GS Holistic’s counsel stated that staff turnover resulted in service-related documents not being saved to the corporate counsel’s computer program in time. Counsel said that, after discovering the problem on February 9, 2023, a process server was requested. Ashes Plus Nine was served on February 14, 2023, and Gaizan N Alreyashi was served on February 22, 2023.
Service Extension
The court held that the staff turnover and failure to save the documents did not establish “good cause” or excusable neglect under Rule 4(m). The court explained that the rule requires parties and attorneys to act diligently and that staff turnover did not excuse the failure to serve the defendants on time.
Even without good cause, Rule 4(m) gives the court broad discretion either to extend the service period or to dismiss the action without prejudice. The court considered that it was not aware of prejudice to the defendants, that dismissing the case would require GS Holistic to incur additional filing and service expenses, and that service had eventually occurred. The court therefore granted GS Holistic’s third motion for an extension of time to file and perfect service. The new service period ran through March 13, 2023, and the service already completed on both defendants was treated as timely.
Case-Management Statement
The court had previously postponed ruling on GS Holistic’s request for more time to file a case-management statement while the service issue was pending. Because no case-management conference was then scheduled, the court denied as moot the motion for an extension of time to file the statement.
The court set an initial case-management conference for April 27, 2023, at 1:30 p.m. by Zoom, and required the case-management statement by April 20, 2023.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.