Varga
v.
Group

This case is not covered by Casetext's citator
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADASep 5, 2018
Case No. 2:18-cv-00548-GMN-GWF (D. Nev. Sep. 5, 2018)

Case No. 2:18-cv-00548-GMN-GWF

09-05-2018

PETER ALEXANDER VARGA, Plaintiff, v. FINDLAY AUTOMOTIVE GROUP, et al., Defendants.


ORDER

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Second Emergency Motion to Extend Service of Summons and Complaint Deadline (ECF No. 5), filed on August 24, 2018.

Plaintiff requests a ninety (90) day extension of time to effectuate service. Plaintiff represents that there is a state court action against the Findlay Defendants that is the same or similar causes of action as this matter. He further represents that there is a pending motion to amend his complaint in the state court action and that he filed this complaint in this district in order to maintain his claims in the event that the pending motion to amend was denied or only partially granted. He states that the Findlay Defendants are aware of this action. Plaintiff further represents that he will seek a stay of this matter if the pending motion in the state court action is not finalized within 90 days.

A federal district court may decline to exercise or postpone the exercise of its jurisdiction when there are concurrent state and federal suits and when doing so would promote wise and sound judicial administration, including the conservation of judicial resources and the avoidance of piecemeal litigation under the Colorado River doctrine. Colorado River Water Conservation Dist. V. United States, 424 U.S. 800, 815 (1976); Moradi v. Adelson, 2014 WL 1413627, at *3 (D. Nev. Apr. 11, 2014); Sw. Circle Grp., Inc. v. Perini Bldg. Co., 2010 WL 2667335, at *1 (D. Nev. June 29, 2010). However, a district court may refrain from deciding an action for damages only in exceptional cases where the "clearest of justifications support dismissal." Moradi, 2014 WL 1413627 at *3 (citing R & R Street & Co. Inc. v. Transport Ins. Co., 656 F.3d 966, 978 (9th Cir. 2011)). The Court does not apply the Colorado River doctrine at this time.

Pursuant to LR IA 6-1, extensions of time may be granted for good cause shown. Further, Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure - which governs the time limit of service - allows the court to grant an extension of time for service if the plaintiff can show good cause for the failure to timely serve a defendant. The Court finds that Plaintiff has provided sufficient good cause to warrant the requested ninety (90) day extension. Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff Second Emergency Motion to Extend Service of Summons and Complaint Deadline (ECF No. 5) is granted. Plaintiff shall have until November 23, 2018 to effectuate service.

Dated this 5th day of September, 2018.

/s/_________


GEORGE FOLEY, JR.


UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE