Opinion
Case No: C 14-0078
01-30-2015
ILLUMINATION DYNAMICS CO., LTD., a foreign company, Plaintiff, v. PACIFIC LIGHTING SOLUTIONS L.L.C., and BILL ZHANG, an individual, Defendants.
ORDER RE SERVICE ON DEFENDANT BILL ZHANG
On January 16, 2014, Plaintiff Illumination Dynamics ("Plaintiff") commenced the instant breach of contract action against Defendants Pacific Lighting Solutions L.L.C. and Bill Zhang ("Zhang"), who resides in China. Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint on March 19, 2014, and a Second Amended Complaint on July 30, 2014. Dkt. 30, 66. In a filing submitted on December 16, 2014, the parties indicate that Zhang has not yet been served. Dkt. 79 at 2.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) requires that service of process be effectuated on all defendants within 120 days after the filing of the complaint. Rule 4(m)'s 120-day time limit, however, does not apply to foreign defendants. See Lucas v. Natoli, 936 F.2d 432 (9th Cir. 1991). Nevertheless, "the amount of time allowed for foreign service is not unlimited." Nylok Corp. v. Fastener World Inc., 396 F.3d 805, 807 (7th Cir. 2005). A district court thus has the discretion to impose reasonable time limits for service on foreign defendants. Mitchell v. Theriault, 516 F. Supp. 2d 450, 458 (M.D. Pa. 2007) (imposing 120-day time limit to effect service on a foreign defendant after the action had been pending for three months).
Although the instant action has been pending for over a year, Zhang remains to be served and there is no indication in the record when service will be effectuated. Given that various impending deadlines under the Court's pretrial order, including a trial date of July 13, 2015, it is imperative that Plaintiff effectuate service on Zhang forthwith. Accordingly, Plaintiff has one hundred and twenty (120) days from the date this order is filed in which to effect proper service of process on Defendant Zhang. In the event Plaintiff fails to comply with this Order, the Court may dismiss Zhang from the action.
The parties' request to enlarge the pretrial schedule by three months will be addressed in a separate order. Dkt. 79.
IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: January 30, 2015
/s/_________
SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG
United States District Judge