Fruge v. Apollo Freight Systems Inc. et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
ZENAS FRUGE 	CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS 	NO. 25-716
WESTCHESTER FIRE INSURANCE
COMPANY, APOLLO FREIGHT
SYSTEMS INC. AND STEPHEN
MOORE
SECTION “B” (3)
ORDER AND REASONS
On October 24, 2025, plaintiff was ordered to file into the record return of service of
process on defendant Stephen Moore by November 7, 2025. Rec. Doc. 21. A review of the record
indicates that no service of the complaint has been made upon defendant Moore.
On October 31, 2025, plaintiff responded to the order, seeking a 90-day extension of the
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) period to serve Moore. Rec. Doc. 23. Plaintiff argues that he
has made a good faith effort to serve Moore and that good cause exists to grant a 90-day extension
to serve Moore. Id. at 4.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) states that where “a defendant is not served within
90 days after the complaint is filed, the court . . . must dismiss the action without prejudice against
that defendant or order that service be made within a specified time” unless the “plaintiff shows
good case for the failure,” in which case the court “shall extend time for service for an appropriate
period.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). The plaintiff carries the burden to show good cause. Prytania Media
LLC v. NetEase, Inc., No. 25-0464, 2025 WL 2624357, at *4 (E.D. La. Sept. 11, 2025). To
establish good cause, a plaintiff must show some evidence of “good faith on the part of the party
seeking an enlargement of time and some reasonable basis for noncompliance within the time
specified.” Ganpat v. Eastern Pacific Shipping, PTE LTD., 434 F. Supp. 3d 441, 462 (E.D La.
Case 2:25-cv-00716-ILRL-EJD Document 27 Filed 12/11/25 Page 1 of 2

2020). When a plaintiff attempts to serve a defendant several times at their last known address
within the original 90-day period, a court may find “good cause” to extend the 90-day period in
Rule 4(m). See Wyland v. New Orleans City, No. 08-4288, 2009 WL 3378656, at *1 (E.D. La. Oct.
15, 2009).
Good cause minimally exists to extend the deadline to serve defendant Moore. Plaintiff
states that he tried to serve the original petition on Moore the day after it was filed but that Moore
did not accept the service papers. Rec. Doc. 23 at 5. Plaintiff also states that he has mailed Moore
and reached out to the counsel for defendant Apollo Freight Sytems (“Apollo”) seeking
information about Moore but has not received any response. Id. Plaintiff also alleges that he hired
a process server who attempted to locate Moore at his last known address on nine (9) separate
occasions but was unable to find him. Id. Plaintiff finally adds that he obtained a stipulation from
Apollo’s counsel that they will answer discovery which should provide information that will help
Plaintiff find Moore to serve him. Id. at 5–6. Based on the above,
IT IS ORDERED that plaintiff’s request for an extension of the Rule 4(m) period is
GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that on or before January 19, 2026, plaintiff shall file into
the record the return of service of process that has been affected on defendant Moore. Failure to
do so will result in the DISMISSAL of defendant Moore without further notice.
New Orleans, Louisiana this 11th day of December 2025
_______________________________________
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 2:25-cv-00716-ILRL-EJD Document 27 Filed 12/11/25 Page 2 of 2