Baker v. Avenue 5 Residential

THE HONORABLE JOHN C. COUGHENOUR UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 8 AT SEATTLE 9 JUSTIN BAKER, CASE NO. C24-0300-JCC Plaintiff, ORDER 11 v. 12 AVENUE5 RESIDENTIAL, et al., 13 Defendants.

15 This matter comes before the Court sua sponte. Plaintiff lodged a complaint with the Court on March 11, 2024, after the Honorable S. Kate Vaughan, United States Magistrate Judge, granted Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis. (See Dkt. Nos. 6, 7). Plaintiff then sought summons, which the Clerk issued March 28, 2024. (See Dkt. No. 15.) Plaintiff has not yet filed an affidavit demonstrating service of that summons. See Fed. R. Civ. P 4(l).

20 Rule 4(m) provides that if a defendant “is not served within 90 days after the complaint is filed, the court—on motion or on its own after notice to the plaintiff—must dismiss the action without prejudice against that defendant or order that service be made within a specified time.”

23 Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). However, if a plaintiff shows good cause for the failure to serve, the court must extend the time for service for an appropriate period. Id. The burden of establishing good cause is on the plaintiff. Tucker v. City of Santa Monica, 2013 WL 653996 slip op. at 2 (C.D. 26 Cal. 2013).

1 Plaintiff previously twice sought an extension of time for service in this matter, which the Court provided, after finding good cause to do so. (See Dkt. Nos. 21–24.) The Court has closely reviewed Plaintiff’s latest submission (Dkt. No. 25) and does not find that it demonstrates good cause for a further extension of time for service.

5 Accordingly, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), the complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice.

8 DATED this 30th day of September 2024.

A John C. Coughenour 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE