YANNUL v. UNIVERSAL DENTISTRY, P.C.

[ECF No. 9]

THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

CAMDEN VICINAGE

MICHAEL YANNUL,

Plaintiff,

v. Civil No. 24-10792 (KMW/SAK)

UNIVERSAL DENTISTRY, P.C. et al.,

Defendants.

OPINION AND ORDER

This matter is before the Court on the “Motion for Extension of Time to Complete Service”

[ECF No. 9] filed by Plaintiff Michael Yannul. Plaintiff seeks a 90-day extension to complete

service upon Defendant, Ira Eisenstein, DMD (“Dr. Eisenstein”). The Court exercises its

discretion to decide the motion without oral argument. See FED. R. CIV. P. 78; L. CIV. R. 78.1. For

the reasons to be discussed, Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED.

I. BACKGROUND

On November 27, 2024, Plaintiff filed this action against Defendants Universal Dentistry,

P.C., Universal Dentistry Management, L.L.C., and Dr. Eisenstein. See Compl. [ECF No. 1]. The

Clerk’s Office issued summonses with respect to these Defendants on December 2, 2024. See

Summons [ECF No. 3].

On January 16, 2025, Plaintiff attempted to personally serve Dr. Eisenstein at Universal

Dentistry P.C. See Mem. of Law at 5 [ECF No. 9-1]; Exh. A [ECF No. 9-3]. The licensed process

server was informed that Dr. Eisenstein was no longer employed there. Id. On January 22, 2025,

Plaintiff attempted to personally serve Dr. Eisenstein at two other locations thought to be his places

of employment. See Mem. of Law at 5-6 [ECF No. 9-1]. The process server was informed that Dr.

Eisenstein was no longer employed at either of the locations. See id.; Exh. B [ECF No. 9-4]; Exh.

C [ECF No. 9-5]. On February 11, 2025, Plaintiff attempted to ascertain Dr. Eisenstein’s address

from the New Jersey State Board of Dentistry. See Exh. D [ECF No. 9-6].1 On February 26, 2025,

Plaintiff also mailed a request to waive service and a copy of the complaint by courier to 955

Chanticleer, Cherry Hill, New Jersey 08003. See Mem. of Law at 6-7 [ECF No. 9-1]; Exh. E [ECF

No. 9-7]. The request and copy of the complaint were delivered to the mailbox of the address. Id.

However, the courier was unable to personally deliver the papers. Id.

On February 28, 2025, Plaintiff filed the present motion seeking a 90-day extension to

serve Dr. Eisenstein. See Mot. [ECF No. 9]. Plaintiff contends that his multiple attempts to serve

Dr. Eisenstein within the time prescribed by Rule 4(m) establishes good cause to warrant this

extension. See Mem. of Law at 7-8 [ECF No. 9-1]. After filing his motion, Plaintiff personally

served Dr. Eisenstein through a licensed process server on March 13, 2025. See Aff. of Service

[ECF No. 10].

II. DISCUSSION

A. Legal Standard

Pursuant to Rule 4(m) if a plaintiff shows “good cause” for failing to serve a defendant

within 90 days of filing the complaint, a district court “must extend the time for service for an

appropriate period.” See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). “[T]he primary focus” of the good cause analysis

is plaintiff’s “reasons for not complying with the time limit in the first place.” MCI Telecomms.

Corp. v. Teleconcepts, Inc., 71 F.3d 1086, 1097 (3d Cir. 1995). The plaintiff must demonstrate

“good faith” and “some reasonable basis for noncompliance within the time specified in the rules.”

1 Plaintiff’s motion did not indicate the result of this attempt.

Id. Within this context, courts have considered three factors to determine whether good cause

exists: (1) the reasonableness of the plaintiffs’ efforts to serve; (2) prejudice to the defendants by

lack of timely service; and (3) whether the plaintiffs timely moved for an extension of time.

See Beautyman v. Laurent, 829 F. App’x 581, 583 (3d Cir. 2020) (citation omitted).

B. Analysis

Here, the Court finds Plaintiff established good cause for failing to serve Dr. Eisenstein

within the time prescribed by Rule 4(m). Plaintiff made reasonable and good faith efforts to timely

serve Dr. Einstein. The 90-day period to serve Defendants expired on February 25, 2025.2 Prior to

this date, Plaintiff attempted to personally serve Dr. Eisenstein on three occasions at three different

locations. Plaintiff also sought to ascertain Dr. Eisenstein’s current mailing address from the New

Jersey State Board of Dentistry. These reasonable efforts support a finding of good cause.

The Court also finds Dr. Einstein will not be prejudiced by the lack of timely service. Dr.

Einstein has now been served, and service occurred only two weeks after the 90-day deadline

expired. This delay is minimal and will not significantly impact litigation.

Although Plaintiff failed to timely move for an extension, this delay was minimal.

Plaintiff’s motion was filed three days after the expiration of the 90-day period. Plaintiff’s slight

delay does not preclude a finding of good cause. Cf. Gonzalez v. Thomas Built Buses, Inc., 268

F.R.D. 521, 529 (M.D.Pa. 2010) (recognizing the Third Circuit’s preference “to decide a case on

its merits than on a procedural technicality”). In light of Plaintiff’s overall diligence, which

continued even after the motion was filed, Plaintiff established good cause for an extension.

2 Plaintiff contends the deadline to effect service was March 2, 2025, 90 days after the

Summons was issued on December 2, 2024. See Mem. of Law at 8 [ECF No. 9-1]. However, the

service period is calculated from the date the complaint is filed under Rule 4(m). See Fed. R. Civ.

P. 4(m).

III. CONCLUSION

Accordingly, for all the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED this 24th day of

March, 2025, that Plaintiff’s Motion [ECF No. 9] is GRANTED; and it is further

ORDERED that service on Defendant Ira Eisenstein, DMD, which occurred on March 13,

2025, is deemed timely.

s/ Sharon A. King

SHARON A. KING

United States Magistrate Judge

cc: Hon. Karen M. Williams, U.S.D.J.