DISTRICT COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS
DIVISION OF ST. CROIX
5
JOHN FOY,
5
5
Plaintiff,
5
2007-CV-0092
v.
5
5
AMBIENT TECHNOLOGIES, INC., IDE-
5
SWRO TECHNOLOGIES, INC., MICHAEL
5
P. TRAMER, and V.I. WATER AND POWER 5
AUTHORITY,
5
5
Defendants. 5
__________________________________________5
TO:
Lee J. Rohn, Esq.
Raegan M. King, Esq.
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME
THIS MATTER came before the Court upon Plaintiff’s Motion For Extension of Time
to Serve Defendant Nunc Pro Tunc (Docket No. 13).  Defendants IDE Technologies, Inc.,
Michael P. Tramer, and V.I. Water and Power Authority filed an opposition to said motion.
The time for filing a reply has expired.
Plaintiff seeks an extension of time to effectuate service upon Defendant Ambient
Technologies, Inc.  Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m) requires a defendant to be served within 120 days
after the filing of the complaint.  The terms of the rule are clear:
Case: 1:07-cv-00092-TJS   Document #: 21   Filed: 06/13/08   Page 1 of 2
Foy v. Ambient Technologies, Inc.
2007-CV-0092
Order Denying Plaintiff’s Motion For Extension of Time
Page 2
If a defendant is not served within 120 days after the complaint is filed, the
court--on motion or on its own after notice to the plaintiff--must dismiss the
action without prejudice against that defendant or order that service be made
within a specified time. But if the plaintiff shows good cause for the failure,
the court must extend the time for service for an appropriate period.
Fed. R. Civ. 4(m).
As amply demonstrated by said Defendants, Plaintiff failed even to attempt to serve
the correct corporation until after the 120-day deadline and then waited in excess of
another four (4) months to request an extension of time.  Despite Plaintiff’s lengthy and
detailed explanation for his failure to serve Defendant Ambient Technologies within the
specified time limit, Plaintiff has failed to show good cause for such failure, and, instead,
demonstrates his own failure to exercise diligence.
WHEREFORE, it is now hereby ORDERED:
1.
Plaintiff’s Motion For Extension of Time to Serve Defendant Nunc Pro Tunc
(Docket No. 13) is DENIED.
2.
Defendant Ambient Technologies, Inc., is DISMISSED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE.
ENTER:
Dated: June 13, 2008
                                /s/                                   
GEORGE W. CANNON, JR.
U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case: 1:07-cv-00092-TJS   Document #: 21   Filed: 06/13/08   Page 2 of 2