`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
`AT SEATTLE
`
`DAVID JEFFREY CENEDELLA,
`
`CASE NO. 2:23-cv-274
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`MINUTE ORDER
`
`BRISTOL MYERS SQUIBB CO, a
`Delaware corporation doing business in
`Washington,
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`The following Minute Order is made by direction of the Court, the Honorable
`
`Jamal N. Whitehead, United States District Judge: On February 27, 2023, David
`
`Jeffrey Cenedella filed this lawsuit against Bristol Myers Squibb Co. Dkt. No. 1. On
`
`November 9, 2023, the Court ordered Cenedella to show cause within 14 days why
`
`this matter should not be dismissed without prejudice under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m) for
`
`failure to effect timely service. Dkt. No. 8. Plaintiff did not respond to the Court’s
`
`Order. See docket generally. The Court dismissed Plaintiff’s case without prejudice.
`
`Plaintiff now asks the Court for another 60 days for service in this matter. Dkt. No.
`
`10. Plaintiff based his request for additional time for service on the fact that there is
`
`a group of plaintiffs across the country who are also involved in litigation with the
`
`MINUTE ORDER - 1
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:23-cv-00274-JNW Document 11 Filed 03/04/24 Page 2 of 2
`
`Defendant and that an acceptance of service has been sent to Defendant’s counsel.
`
`Id.
`
`Plaintiff filed the Rule 4(m) motion for an extension of time after the Court
`
`had already dismissed this case. Dkt. No. 9. The Rule 4(m) motion is therefore
`
`properly read as a motion for relief under Rule 59(e) or Rule 60(b) from the Court’s
`
`November 27, 2023, Order. Dkt. No. 10. Motions for extension of time in which to
`
`effect service of process are governed by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m), which provides that “if
`
`the plaintiff shows good cause for the failure [to serve within 90 days], the court
`
`must extend the time for service for an appropriate period.” Here, Plaintiff failed to
`
`respond to the Court’s show cause order; thus, no showing of good cause was made.
`
`Plaintiff fails to identify any change of controlling law, availability of new
`
`evidence, or clear error in the November 27, 2023, Order, or need to prevent
`
`manifest injustice that is required to grant his motion for relief from the November
`
`27 Order.
`
`The Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion. Dkt. No. 10.
`
`Dated this 4th day of March 2024.
`
`Ravi Subramanian
`Clerk
`/s/Kathleen Albert
`Deputy Clerk
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`MINUTE ORDER - 2
`
`