United States District Court, D. Arizona
A. Teilborg Senior United States District Judge.
March 14, 2018, this Court issued the following Order:
before the Court is Plaintiff's motion for extension of
time to serve. (Doc. 12). Plaintiff filed this motion on the
day service was required to be completed, giving itself no
opportunity to complete service if the Court denies the
are 5 Defendants in this case (including, as a single
defendant, the improperly named fictitious defendants).
Service was executed on VFS Leasing Co LSR on February 5,
2018. (Doc. 13). The time to answer has run and no answer has
to Plaintiff, Defendants Mr. Toro and Jane Doe Toro have been
served (Doc. 12), but no proof of service has been filed.
Plaintiff claims it has attempted service on JKJ Transport
Company on multiple occasions, but that service has been
unsuccessful. (Doc. 12). Plaintiff claims that he has been in
contact with counsel (who has not appeared) for Defendants
Toro, and that the same counsel will be representing JKJ
Transport Company. (Id.) However, Plaintiff claims
that “as [a] professional courtesy”
Plaintiff's counsel “extended”
Defendants' deadline for their responsive pleading.
General Order at Doc. 4 makes clear that Plaintiff's
counsel does not have the authority to grant extensions of
time to answer. Presumably defense counsel knows this was an
invalid extension because Doc. 4 was required to be served on
Defendants with the complaint. (Doc. 4 at 3-4).
Court has the authority to extend the time to answer only
when the following is true:
Upon a showing that a defendant cannot reasonably respond to
a complaint within the time set forth in Rule 12(a)(1)-(3),
the court may, with or without awaiting a response from the
opposing party, grant a one-time extension of up to 30 days
to respond to the complaint.
(Doc. 4 at 5).
Here, Defendant has made no showing; thus, any implied
request to extend time to answer is denied. Based on the
ORDERED that proofs of service for Defendants Toro must be
filed within one business day.
IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff must either move
for default against VSR Leasing Co. LSR and Defendants Toro
by March 19, 2018, or by March 20, 2018 show cause why these
three Defendants should not be dismissed for failure to
prosecute (see Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b)).
IS FURTHER ORDERED that by March 20, 2018, Plaintiff
must move for an extension of time to serve JKJ Transport
Company applying the correct legal test or Defendant JKJ
Transport Company will be dismissed for failure to serve. The
currently pending motion for extension of time to serve (Doc.
12) is denied, without prejudice.
IS FINALLY ORDERED dismissing, without prejudice,