Corral v. National Consumer Telecom & Utilities Exchange, Inc.
2:25-cv-00019
D. Nev.May 2, 2025Background
- Plaintiff Angel Corral filed a lawsuit under the Fair Credit Reporting Act on January 3, 2025, alleging violations by National Consumer Telecom & Utilities Exchange, Inc., among others.
- Summons were timely issued, but plaintiff failed to serve the defendants within the required 90-day period due to staff hospitalization and office errors.
- After a Notice of Intent to Dismiss under Rule 4(m), plaintiff sought an extension which was initially denied for lack of good cause or excusable neglect.
- The court ordered plaintiff to refile with an amended motion; plaintiff complied, and also supplied proofs of service shortly thereafter.
- The court analyzed both "good cause" and "excusable neglect" under the relevant standards, focusing on plaintiff's reasons for delay and prejudice to the defendant.
- Ultimately, the judge found both standards satisfied and deemed service timely.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether to grant extension for untimely service | Corral argued delay was due to unexpected staff shortages, illness, and office calendaring error, not bad faith | Not stated | Extension granted; proofs of service deemed timely |
| Good cause for delay in service | Corral cited diligence in attempting to serve once aware, and that delay was outside immediate control | Not stated | Court found sufficient good cause for delay |
| Excusable neglect for failure to timely serve | Corral pointed to a calendaring oversight and prompt action after being notified, with no meaningful prejudice to defendant documented | Not stated | Court found excusable neglect under the four-factor test |
| Risk of prejudice to defendant due to delay in service | Corral argued no prejudice because delay was minimal and defendant could still defend effectively | Not stated | Court agreed; no showing of unreasonable prejudice |
Key Cases Cited
- Efaw v. Williams, 473 F.3d 1038 (9th Cir. 2003) (Rule 4(m) provides courts discretion to extend time for service)
- Mann v. American Airlines, 324 F.3d 1088 (9th Cir. 2003) (Rule 4(m) allows extensions even after 90-day deadline)
- Townsel v. Contra Costa Cnty., 820 F.2d 319 (9th Cir. 1987) (good cause for delay in service requires more than inadvertence or mistake)
- Pincay v. Andrews, 389 F.3d 853 (9th Cir. 2004) (excusable neglect can include calendaring errors)
- Oyama v. Sheehan (In re Sheehan), 253 F.3d 507 (9th Cir. 2001) (discretion to extend time for service under Rule 4(m))