Steven Sholem v. Hons. gass/contes/melissa Langevin

Summary

The court held that the service rule requires an extension when a plaintiff shows good cause but also permits a discretionary extension without good cause. The service rule, rather than the general time-extension rule, governs extensions of the original service period, so excusable neglect is not required for a late request. Although the plaintiff failed to establish good cause, the trial court acted within its discretion because the record showed no meaningful prejudice and suggested possible evasion of service.