Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-00706/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-00706-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 480
Nature of Suit: Consumer Credit
Cause of Action: 15:1681 Fair Credit Reporting Act

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Hunter Storm, an individual,

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Capital One Bank, a foreign corporation,

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-07-0706-PHX-LOA

ORDER

 This matter arises on Plaintiff’s Renewed (Second) Motion for Extension of

Service of Process Deadline and Request Case Not Be Dismissed, filed on August 24, 2007.

(docket # 17) Plaintiff contends that good cause exists to extend the time to serve the

Amended Complaint. Defendant has not yet appeared in this action. The Court agrees that

good cause exists and it will grant the subject motion. 

Plaintiff filed this lawsuit on April 5, 2007 against Capital One, alleging, among

others, violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq., in connection

with Defendant’s inaccurate information provided to credit agencies. (docket # 1) After

filing an Amended Complaint against Defendant Capital One Bank and before Rule 4(m)’s

120 day deadline for service of process, Plaintiff filed her Motion for Extension of Time of

Service, representing she “served Capital One Bank through their service company located

here in Arizona, Capital One Service, Inc.” (docket # 11 at 1) The Court denied Plaintiff’s

Motion without prejudice on August 9, 2007 for “failing to properly follow the Court’s

Administrative Policies and Procedures Manual with respect to submission of proposed

Case 2:07-cv-00706-SRB Document 18 Filed 08/28/07 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1 (m) Time Limit for Service. If service of the summons and complaint is not

made upon a defendant within 120 days after the filing of the complaint, the

court, upon motion or on its own initiative after notice to the plaintiff, shall

dismiss the action without prejudice as to that defendant or direct that service

be effected within a specified time; provided that if the plaintiff shows good

cause for the failure, the court shall extend the time for service for an

appropriate period. This subdivision does not apply to service in a foreign

country pursuant to subdivision (f) or (j)(1).

- 2 -

orders.” (docket # 13) On August 24, 2007, Plaintiff filed the subject Motion and seeks an

extension to serve the Amended Complaint for a period of sixty (60) days “to assure that

Capital One Bank has been served by mail or other process.” 

Plaintiff’s Motion demonstrates that the service of process thought to be

completed upon Defendant by service upon “the statutory agent for Capital One Auto

Finance, Inc.[,] Capital One Service Inc.[,] and Capital One Services II, LLC” was returned

by the statutory agent who “refused to accept it on behalf of Capital One Bank.” (docket #

17 at 3) It also shows the due diligence Plaintiff’s counsel has exercised, and the difficulties

Plaintiff’s counsel has experienced, in trying to identify and serve the correct defendant.

Plaintiff also contends that Defendant has notice of this lawsuit such that Defendant would

not be prejudiced by a reasonable extension and that a dismissal, even without prejudice,

would “severely injure Plaintiff’s case and result in a violation of the statute of limitations.”

(Id. at 6)

Rule 4(m), Fed.R.Civ.P.,1

 requires a district court to grant an extension of time

when a plaintiff shows “good cause” for the delay and also allows the district court in the

exercise of its discretion to grant an extension of time for service even in the absence of good

cause. Efaw v. Williams, 473 F.3d 1038, 1040 (9th Cir. 2007); Mann v. Am. Airlines, 324

F.3d 1088, 1090 n. 2 (9th Cir. 2003). “District courts have broad discretion to extend time

for service under Rule 4(m).” Efaw, 473 F.3d at 1041 (citing Henderson v. United States, 517

U.S. 654, 661 (1996) (Rule 4's 120-day time period for service “operates not as an outer limit

subject to reduction, but as an irreducible allowance.”)) “In making extension decisions

Case 2:07-cv-00706-SRB Document 18 Filed 08/28/07 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 3 -

under Rule 4(m)[,] a district court may consider factors ‘like a statute of limitations bar,

prejudice to the defendant, actual notice of a lawsuit, and eventual service.’” Id.

Good cause appearing,

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Renewed (Second) Motion for Extension of

Service of Process Deadline and Request Case Not Be Dismissed, (docket # 17), is

GRANTED, nunc pro tunc, from August 2, 2007. Plaintiff shall serve Defendant on or

before Monday, November 26, 2007 or this case may be dismissed without prejudice for

lack of prosecution pursuant to Rule 41(b), FED.R.CIV.P. 

Dated this 27th day of August, 2007.

Case 2:07-cv-00706-SRB Document 18 Filed 08/28/07 Page 3 of 3