1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10

11 ZARAH ZAMBRANO, et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-01234-KES-CDB

12 Plaintiffs,

ORDER GRANTING EX PARTE

APPLICATION TO EXTEND TIME FOR

13 v.

SERVICE OF PROCESS

14 COUNTY OF KERN, et al., (Doc. 33)

15 Defendants. Deadline: February 21, 2025

16 17 18 Plaintiffs Dutchlynn Broitzmann (“D. Broitzmann”) and Oscar Zambrano (“O. 19 Zambrano”) (collectively, “Plaintiffs”), as the natural parents and purported successors in interest 20 of decedent Zarah Zambrano, commenced this action against the County of Kern and numerous 21 individual defendants with their filing of a complaint on October 9, 2024. (Doc. 1). On October 22 11, 2024, the Clerk of the Court issued summonses and the Court entered an Order setting a 23 mandatory scheduling conference. (Docs. 4, 5, 6, 7). The Order directed Plaintiffs to “diligently 24 pursue service of summons and complaint” and “promptly file proofs of service.” (Doc. 7 p. 1). 25 The Order further advised Plaintiff that failure to diligently prosecute this action “may result in 26 the imposition of sanctions, including the dismissal of unserved defendants.” (Id.). 27 On November 21, 2024, the Court extended time for Defendant County of Kern to respond 28 to the complaint until January 3, 2025, and continued the January 14, 2025, scheduling conference 1 extending nunc pro tunc time for all County Defendants to have until January 20, 2025, to respond 2 to the complaint. (Doc. 32). 3 Pending before the Court is Plaintiffs’ ex parte application to extend the time by 45 days 4 for service of the summons and complaint to the remaining Defendants - Devin Ramey, Monica 5 Castro, and Deborah Karsgor (collectively, “remaining Defendants”), filed on December 5, 2024. 6 (Doc. 33). The application is supported by the declaration of counsel for Plaintiffs in which 7 counsel attests that “Plaintiffs have diligently attempted to locate and serve all Defendants, but 8 have not been able to complete service on these [remaining] Defendants” as “[s]everal 9 [D]efendants have been unable to be located based on current information in the possession nof 10 Plaintiffs, and or/were not the correct [D]efendant.” (Id. at 4); (see id. at 4, Decl. Chung, ¶ 13). 11 Plaintiffs anticipate the current statutory time to serve these remaining Defendants “will prove 12 difficult” in light of the upcoming holidays. (Id. at 4). Plaintiffs attest the proposed extension will 13 not prejudicially delay the proceedings because the pleadings are not yet at issue. (Id.). Counsel 14 for Plaintiffs attests “[t]his matter could not be placed on the Court’s civil law and motion calendar 15 and no stipulation could be made because not all [D]efendants have been served.” (Decl. Chung, 16 ¶ 18). The current statutory deadline to serve the summons and complaint is January 7, 2025. 17 (Doc. 33 at 5); (see Doc. 7 p. 1). On November 14, 2024, counsel for Plaintiffs emailed counsel 18 for Defendant County of Kern its request for extension of time to serve the remaining Defendants. 19 (Doc. 33 p. 5); (see Decl. Chung, ¶ 17). Defendant County of Kern does not oppose the instant 20 request. (Id.). Counsel for Plaintiffs requests that the Court extend the time for service until 21 February 21, 2024. (Id. at 6). 22 With respect to service, where a plaintiff fails to serve a defendant within 90 days after the 23 complaint is filed, Rule 4(m), Fed. R. Civ. P. requires the Court to dismiss the action or order that 24 service be made within a specified time upon a showing by the plaintiff of “good cause” for 25 the delay. See In re Sheehan, 253 F.3d 507, 512 (9th Cir. 2001). 26 Here, based on counsel for Plaintiffs’ attestations, the Court finds good cause to extend the 27 time under Rule 4(m) to effect service on the remaining Defendants. 28 /// 1 Accordingly, in light of Plaintiffs’ representations and good cause appearing, IT IS 2 |} HEREBY ORDERED: 3 1. Pursuant to Rule 4(m), Fed. R. Civ. P., no later than February 21 2024, Plaintiffs 4 SHALL FILE summonses returned executed as to each Defendant; and 5 2. The February 6, 2025 scheduling conference is reset to March 24, 2025, at 9:00 6 AM. before Magistrate Judge Christopher D. Baker. The parties are reminded of 7 their obligation to file a joint scheduling report at least one week prior to the 8 conference. (Doc. 7). 9 || IT IS SO ORDERED. 10 Dated: _ December 6, 2024 | ) Ww Vv R~ 11 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28