1

2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 4 * * * 5 Joe Hand Promotions, Inc., Case No. 2:22-cv-01086-CDS-DJA 6 Plaintiffs, 7 Order v. 8 Café de Manila LLC; et al., 9 Defendants. 10 11 Before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to extend the time for service. (ECF No. 5). 12 Plaintiff explains that, due to a miscommunication, counsel did not effectuate service within the 13 ninety-day period. (Id. at 2). Plaintiff adds that it has since served all three Defendants and thus, 14 they have notice of the lawsuit. (Id. at 3). Because the Court finds that Plaintiff has demonstrated 15 good cause and excusable neglect, it grants the motion. 16 A. The Court grants Plaintiffs’ motion to extend time for service. 17 Courts have broad discretion to extend time for service under Rule 4(m). Efaw v.

F.3d 1038, 1041 (9th Cir. 2003). The 90–day period for service contained in Rule 19 4(m) “operates not as an outer limit subject to reduction, but as an irreducible allowance.” 20 Henderson v. United States,

(1996). “On its face, Rule 4(m) does not tie the 21 hands of the district court after the . . . [90]–day period has expired. Rather, Rule 4(m) explicitly 22 permits a district court to grant an extension of time to serve the complaint after that . . .[90]–day 23 period.” Mann v. American Airlines,

(9th Cir. 2003). Moreover, the 24 Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 4(m) state that the rule “explicitly provides that the court shall 25 allow additional time if there is good cause for the plaintiff’s failure to effect service in the 26 prescribed . . .[90] days, and authorizes the court to relieve a plaintiff of the consequences of an 27 application of [Rule 4(m)] even if there is no good cause shown.” See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m), 1 diligence. See Wright & Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure: Civil 3d § 1337. Under Local 2 Rule IA 6-1(a), “[a] request made after the expiration of the specified period will not be granted 3 unless the movant or attorney demonstrates that the failure to file the motion before the deadline 4 expired was the result of excusable neglect.” 5 Plaintiff has demonstrated that an extension of time is warranted. It explains that the 6 missed deadline was inadvertent and that it has taken steps to remedy the issue by serving 7 Defendants. (ECF No. 5). Plaintiff adds that, should the Court not grant its motion, it will lose 8 the ability to try its case on the merits. (Id. at 3). The Court finds that Plaintiff has demonstrated 9 good cause and excusable neglect to extend the service deadline. The Court thus grants 10 Plaintiffs’ motion. Plaintiff’s service of Defendants on October 14, 2022 will be considered 11 timely. 12 13 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion (ECF No. 5) is granted. Its 14 service of Defendants on October 14, 2022 will be considered timely. 15 16 DATED: October 24, 2022 17 DANIEL J. ALBREGTS 18 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27