Johnson et al v. Anderson et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
ELIJAH JOHNSON, individually, and as )
Natural Parent of A.J., a minor child, C.J., )
a minor child, H.J., a minor child, and E.J., )
a minor child, )
)
Plaintiffs, )
)
v. ) Case No. CIV-25-1489-SLP
)
STANLEY ANDERSON, et al., )
)
Defendants. )
O R D E R
Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Combined Response To Show Cause Order and First
Motion to Extend Time for Service (the Response) [Doc. No. 16].1 Plaintiffs filed their
Petition on November 24, 2025. See Pet. [Doc. No. 1-2]. The matter was removed to this
Court on December 12, 2025. See generally Not. of Removal [Doc. No. 1]. Because
Defendant Stanley Anderson (Anderson) was not served prior to removal, Plaintiffs’
service deadline for Anderson became March 12, 2026. See 28 U.S.C. § 1448; Fed. R. Civ.
P. 4(m). Plaintiffs request a ninety (90) day extension of their deadline to effect service of
process on Anderson. See Response [Doc. No. 16] at 1. Plaintiffs represent they attempted
to serve Anderson by mail while the matter was pending in state court. See id. at 3-4. Due
to delays in mailing during the holiday season, the unserved Petition and Summons were
not returned until after December 25, 2025. See id. at 4. In early January 2026, Plaintiffs’
1 While a motion for extension of time is not typically the proper mechanism to seek relief after a
deadline has expired, Plaintiffs have demonstrated a permissive extension is warranted, and thus
the Court grants relief pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m).
Case 5:25-cv-01489-SLP Document 17 Filed 03/25/26 Page 1 of 3

counsel retained a local process server to serve Anderson, who then subcontracted out their
work to a Houston-based process server. See id. at 4-5. Counsel for Plaintiffs represent
that upon removal to this Court, their office failed to docket the new service deadline of
March 12, 2026.2 See id. After the issuance of the Order to Show Cause [Doc. No. 15],
counsel for Plaintiffs discovered that the subcontractor hired by their service processor had
ceased performing process server work entirely. See id. After several attempts to contact
the subcontractor, Plaintiffs’ counsel was able to get in touch with the subcontractor. See
id. The subcontractor stated that he did attempt to serve Anderson on multiple occasions,
“but was unable to as nobody would answer the door.” Id. Counsel represents that the
subcontractor advised they would send an Affidavit of Non-Service, but it has yet to be
received. See id. Counsel for Plaintiffs represent that they have contacted other process
servers who would be able to effect service on Anderson should the Court grant relief. See
id. at 6.
The Court must extend the deadline for service when a plaintiff shows good cause.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). In the absence of good cause, the Court has discretion to grant a
permissive extension. Espinoza v. United States, 52 F.3d 838, 841 (10th Cir. 1995). Based
on Plaintiffs’ representations, the Court finds the circumstances of this case justify a
permissive extension. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs an additional 90 days
from their deadline to effect service of process on Anderson. Plaintiffs shall serve
2 Under Oklahoma law, Plaintiffs had 180 days to serve Anderson. See 12 Okla. Stat. tit. 12, §
2004(C)(2). Because Plaintiffs had yet to serve Anderson upon removal, the Plaintiffs had 90
days from removal to serve him pursuant to federal law. See 28 U.S.C. § 1448; Fed. R. Civ. P.
4(m).
Case 5:25-cv-01489-SLP Document 17 Filed 03/25/26 Page 2 of 3

Defendant Stanley Anderson on or before June 10, 2026. Failure to timely effect service
of process may result in dismissal of this action without prejudice as to Defendant Stanley
Anderson.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 25th day of March, 2026.
Case 5:25-cv-01489-SLP Document 17 Filed 03/25/26 Page 3 of 3