Goodwin v. Marin County Transit District

— 1 — — 2 — — 3 — 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA — 6 — 7 AUSTIN GOODWIN, Case No. 21-cv-07251-JSC 8 Plaintiff, ORDER RE: ADMINISTRATIVE 9 Vv. MOTION TO CONTINUE DEADLINE FOR SERVICE OF PROCESS 10 MARIN COUNTY TRANSIT DISTRICT, et al., Re: Dkt. No. 18 Defendants. qg 12 13 Plaintiffs administrative motion to continue the deadline for service of process on newly- v 14 || added Defendant Marin Airporter is now pending before the Court. (Dkt. No. 18.) No response to 15 || the motion has been filed and the time to respond has run. See Civ. L.R. 7-11(b). 16 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) requires service of process on each named defendant = 17 || within ninety days after the filing of a complaint. Fed. R. Civ. P.4(m). “For defendants who are 18 || added by later amendments to the complaint, the time limit for service runs from the date of the 19 amendment.” MERSCORP Holdings, Inc. v. Kelsey, No. CV 18—3802-JEFW (AFMx), 2018 WL 20 || 6445694, at *2 (C.D. Cal. July 26, 2018.) (citing McGuckin v. United States, 918 F.2d 811 , 813 21 || (9th Cir. 1990)). Plaintiff filed his First Amended Complaint adding Marin Airporter as a 22 || Defendant on January 5, 2022. (Dkt. No. 14.) Accordingly, Plaintiff's administrative motion to 23 extend the time to serve until January 31, 2022 is DENIED AS MOOT. Plaintiff has 90 days from 24 || January 5, 2022 to serve Marin Airporter. 25 IT IS SO ORDERED. 26 || Dated: January 14, 2022 ne — 27 — 28 JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLE United States Magistrate Judge