Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_14-cv-08009/USCOURTS-azd-3_14-cv-08009-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 385
Nature of Suit: Property Damage - Product Liability
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Product Liability

---

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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Arizona School Risk Retention Trust,

Inc.,

 Plaintiff,

vs.

NMTC, Inc. d/b/a Matco Tools, et al.,

 Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-14-08009-PCT-PGR 

 ORDER

 

 

Having reviewed Plaintiff Arizona School Risk Retention Trust’s Motion for

Clarification of the Court’s April 1, 2015 Order (Doc. 103), the Court finds that the 

motion should be summarily denied.

On March 31, 2015, the plaintiff, apparently relying on the 120-day service

deadline of Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(m), filed a Motion to Enlarge Time to Serve Techway

Industrial Company Limited (Doc. 93), wherein it requested an additional ninety days

to complete service due to the difficulty in serving defendant Techway in Taiwan. In

an order (Doc. 96) entered on April 1, 2015, the Court granted the plaintiff’s motion

and gave the plaintiff its requested deadline of July 2, 2015 in which to serve

Techway. In so doing, the Court noted that the plaintiff’s motion was unnecessary

because Rule 4(m)’s 120-day service deadline by its express terms does not apply

Case 3:14-cv-08009-PGR Document 104 Filed 07/01/15 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

- 2 -

to service on foreign defendants.

Now, three months later, the plaintiff requests that the Court clarify its previous

order by ruling as to whether the plaintiff is bound by the July 2nd deadline to serve

Techway or if there is no deadline pursuant to Rule 4(m). The plaintiff states that

service on Techway was effectuated by international mail, return receipt requested

prior to the July 2nd deadline. It further states, however, that it is now attempting to

additionally serve Techway through letters rogatory because it believes that a

Taiwanese court would be more likely to recognize and enforce a judgment if

Techway was so served. The relief that the plaintiff requests is that the Court

“confirm that Rule 4(m) applies and that there is no deadline.” The Court interprets

this to mean that the plaintiff wants the Court to confirm that Rule 4(m) does not

apply to service on Techway and that there is no applicable deadline for serving

Techway.

First, the Court sees no need to confirm that Rule 4(m)’s service deadline

does not apply to service on Techway because the Court has already stated that the

rule is inapplicable, and the rule in any case clearly states that it is not applicable to

foreign defendants.

Second, the Court cannot state that there is no time limit for serving Techway.

While the Ninth Circuit, to the Court’s knowledge, has never specifically imposed any

deadline on serving a foreign defendant, the Court has the inherent authority to set

a deadline for serving a foreign defendant and the Court exercised that authority in

its previous order by setting the deadline specifically requested by the plaintiff. See

Nylok Corp. v. Fastener World Incorporation, 396 F.3d 805, 807 (7th Cir.2005) (In an

action involving in part service on a Taiwanese defendant, the court stated that

“[b]ecause district courts need to be able to control their dockets, we have stated

Case 3:14-cv-08009-PGR Document 104 Filed 07/01/15 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

- 3 -

that the amount of time allowed for [foreign] service is not unlimited.”); Baja

Developments LLC v. TSD Loreto Partners, 2009 WL 2762050, at *1 (D.Ariz. Aug.

28, 2009) (“Although Rule 4(m)’s time limit does not apply to service in a foreign

country, Plaintiff has not cited, nor has the Court found, any authority stating that a

district court is precluded from setting a reasonable time limit for service in a foreign

country to properly manage a civil case.”); Global Lift Corp. v. Hiwin Corp., 2014 WL

4536743 (E.D.Mich. Sept. 11, 2014) (giving the plaintiff an additional 90 days in

which to serve Taiwanese defendants.)

Third, if the plaintiff has some non-speculative reason for believing it now

needs additional time to serve Techway, the Court presumes that its counsel know

how to formally seek such an extension. Therefore,

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff Arizona School Risk Retention Trust’s Motion

for Clarification of the Court’s April 1, 2015 Order (Doc. 103) is denied.

DATED this 1st day of July, 2015.

Case 3:14-cv-08009-PGR Document 104 Filed 07/01/15 Page 3 of 3