1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SOPHIA NORIEGA, Case No.: 24-CV-989 JLS (DEB)

12 Plaintiff,

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S

13 v. MOTION FOR LEAVE TO SERVE

PROCESS OUTSIDE 90-DAY

14 SMA MEDICAL, INC.; MJG

PERIOD

NETWORK, LLC; MANUEL PALMA;

15 and DOES 1 to 10, inclusive, (ECF No. 19) 16 Defendants. 17

18 On October 24, 2024, the Court ordered Plaintiff Sophia Noriega (“Plaintiff”) to 19 show cause as to why Defendants MJG Network, LLC (“MJG”) and Manuel Palma (“Mr. 20 Palma”) should not be dismissed from the case for failure to serve (“OSC,” ECF No. 17). 21 Specifically, the Court stated it would dismiss claims against Defendants MJG and Mr. 22 Palma within thirty (30) days unless Plaintiff filed either (1) proof that service of the 23 summons and Complaint was timely effectuated; or (2) a declaration under penalty of 24 perjury showing good cause for failure to timely effect service upon MJG and Mr. Palma 25 accompanied by a motion for leave to serve process outside the 90-day period. OSC at 1–2. 26 On November 19, 2024, the Court received Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Serve 27 Process Outside the 90-Day Period (“Mot.,” ECF No. 19), as well as counsel for Plaintiff, 28 Mazen Khatib’s (“Mr. Khatib”), Declaration (“Khatib Decl.,” ECF No. 19-1). The Court 1 also received an Affidavit of Service demonstrating service on Defendant MJG. See ECF 2 No. 18. 3 Mr. Khatib represents in his Declaration the following. First, he asserts Defendant 4 MJG has now been served. Khatib Decl. ¶ 3. He also explains when Plaintiff filed this 5 matter, she did not know whether Mr. Palma still worked for and performed professional 6 activities for SMA Medical, Inc. (“SMA”), nor did she know Mr. Palma’s whereabouts, 7 the nature of MJG’s relationship with SMA, or MJG’s direct involvement in the unlawful 8 actions taken against Plaintiff. Id. ¶ 4. Plaintiff was only aware that MJG purportedly 9 employed Mr. Palma, and Plaintiff intended to promptly take discovery as to all these 10 issues and serve MJG and Mr. Palma once it discovered MJG’s role in the events specified 11 in the Complaint and upon learning Mr. Palma’s address. Id. Mr. Khatib states SMA 12 removed the matter on June 5, 2024, and the removal papers included a declaration from 13 Mr. Palma indicating he lived in Mexico. Id. ¶ 5. In her Motion, Plaintiff indicates this 14 caused her to “reasonably believe that Rule 4(m) did not apply to Mr. Palma and that 15 Plaintiff instead may have to make efforts to serve Mr. Palma through internationally 16 agreed means.” Mot. at 2 (citing Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 4(f)). 17 Mr. Khatib then represents that subsequently, on September 4, 2024, SMA issued 18 disclosures specifying a business address for Mr. Palma, “the Doctor’s office and 19 laboratory located at 2061 Ross Ave., El Centro, CA 92243.” Khatib Decl. ¶ 6. During 20 September and October, Plaintiff made six attempts to personally serve Mr. Palma at that 21 address, including two instances where the process server conducted a stakeout, to no avail. 22 Id. ¶ 7. On November 18, 2024, the process server attempted to complete substitute service 23 upon Mr. Palma at this address and was prevented from doing so by Dr. Theodore Affue, 24 who the process server described as “infuriated” at her. Id. 25 In reviewing SMA’s document production, Mr. Khatib asserts Plaintiff discovered a 26 residential address where Mr. Palma indicated he lived in 2022, and diligently made efforts 27 to serve Mr. Palma at this address, but the efforts were unsuccessful as the process server 28 received no response at this address despite three attempts in early November of 2024. Id. 1 8. Based on the above, Mr. Khatib indicates it appears possible, if not likely, that Mr. 2 Palma was engaged in deliberate efforts to evade service. Id. ¥ 9. 3 Under the circumstances, including Plaintiff's initial lack of information regarding 4 || both MJG’s involvement and Mr. Palma’s whereabouts, Plaintiff's subsequent service of 5 ||MJG, and Plaintiff's good faith efforts to serve Mr. Palma and allegations of potential 6 |}evasion of service, the Court finds good cause exists for Plaintiff's delay in serving 7 Defendants MJG and Mr. Palma. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff's Motion for 8 ||Leave to Serve Process Outside the 90-Day Period (ECF No. 19). As indicated above, 9 || Defendant MJG has already been served. With respect to Mr. Palma, who does not appear 10 ||to have yet been served, the Court finds that additional time is warranted based on 11 || Plaintiff's good faith efforts. See Cadles of W. Virginia, LLC v. Alvarez, No. 20-CV-2534 12 || TWR (WVG), 2021 WL 2156187 (S.D. Cal. May 27, 2021) (granting additional time to 13 || serve where the plaintiff claimed it tried to serve the remaining defendants many times to 14 || no avail, and alleged defendants evaded service). 15 As Plaintiff does not specify the additional time she requests to do so, the Court finds 16 || Plaintiff will have thirty (30) days from the date of this Order to complete service on Mr. 17 || Palma. 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 |! Dated: November 25, 2024 tt 20 pee Janis L. Sammartino 7] United States District Judge 22 23 24 25 26 27 28