Varlack
Varlack v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company
Opinion
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
GUSTAVAS VARLACK, Case No. 22-cv-02478-VC
Plaintiff,
ORDER RE MOTIONS TO DISMISS
v. Re: Dkt. Nos. 55, 62,
OHIO SECURITY INSURANCE
COMPANY, et al., Defendants.
Kaiser and CoverWallet’s motions to dismiss are denied. Ohio Security’s motion to dismiss is granted. I Evidentiary Objections. Paragraphs 2 to 17 of Tiega-Noel Varlack’s declaration in support of the opposition to Kaiser’s motion to dismiss are stricken. Dkt. No. 64-1. The paragraphs repeat the allegations in the complaint, but Tiega-Noel Varlack—Varlack’s lawyer— has not shown she has personal knowledge of any of those facts. Failure to Serve Kaiser. Kaiser argues that the claims against him should be dismissed because he was served more than 90 days after the complaint was filed. Under Rule 4(m), “a district court may grant an extension of time retroactively, so that a plaintiff’s untimely service may be deemed timely.” Aiden T. ex rel. Ginnie T. v. Pajaro Valley Unified School Dist., No. C- 07-04144 RMW, 2008 WL 820722, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 26, 2008). Even if the plaintiff does not show “good cause” for failing to serve the…