Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-02170/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-02170-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)

---

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

Rodney J. Adams, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Shuttleport Arizona Joint Venture;

Shuttleport Services Arizona LLC;

Shuttleport Holdings Inc.; Veolia

Transportation Services, Inc.; City of

Phoenix; Robert Bean, 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 07-2170-PHX-JAT

ORDER

On March 11, 2008, the Judge formerly assigned to this case ordered Plaintiff to show

cause why the Defendants should not be dismissed for failing to serve within the time limits

of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m). Doc. #16. Plaintiff has responded and alleged that

he served the City of Phoenix personally, he served Shuttleport Arizona Joint Venture,

Shuttleport Services Arizona LLC, Shuttleport Holdings, Inc., and Veolia Transportation

Services, Inc. by waiver through their counsel, and he seeks an extension of time to serve

Bean. Doc. #26. 

City of Phoenix

The Court notes that the City of Phoenix has now appeared and moved for judgment

on the pleadings. Without prejudice to future consideration of any arguments made in the

Case 2:07-cv-02170-JAT Document 28 Filed 04/16/08 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

- 2 -

pending motion, the Court finds Plaintiff has shown cause with regard to the City of Phoenix

and the City of Phoenix will not be dismissed at this time.

Shuttleport Arizona Joint Venture, Shuttleport Holdings, Inc., and Veolia

Transportation Services, Inc.

The Court notes that a waiver of service was signed on March 14, 2008 by counsel

for Shuttleport Services Arizona, LLC. The Court notes that counsel signed said waiver

ONLY on behalf of Shuttleport Services Arizona, LLC. Therefore, Plaintiff is incorrect in

Doc. #26 wherein he alleges that he also served Shuttleport Arizona Joint Venture,

Shuttleport Holdings, Inc., and Veolia Transportation Services, Inc. The Court’s conclusion

is supported by the e-mailed attached by Plaintiff, wherein defense counsel seeks dismissal

of Shuttleport Arizona Joint Venture, Shuttleport Holdings, Inc., and Veolia Transportation

Services, Inc., and does not indicate that he will waive service for those Defendants. Doc.

#26, Exhibit B. Thus, Shuttleport Arizona Joint Venture, Shuttleport Holdings, Inc., and

Veolia Transportation Services, Inc. have not been served and no cause has been shown for

this failure to timely serve. As a result, these three defendants will be dismissed.

Shuttleport Services Arizona, LLC

With regard to the Defendant for whom a waiver was executed, Shuttleport Services

Arizona, LLC, it appears the waiver sent on March 14, 2008, was also untimely under

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) (the complaint was filed November 7, 2007). Because

of the waiver, the Court will not dismiss Shuttleport Services Arizona, LLC at this time, but

this lack of dismissal is without prejudice to Shuttleport Services Arizona, LLC moving to

dismiss on this basis if it so chooses at the time it responds to the complaint.

Bean

Finally, with regard to Defendant Bean, Plaintiff seeks an unspecified extension of

time to serve Defendant Bean because, “Defendant Bean was a co-worker of Plaintiff.

Plaintiff does not know Defendant Bean outside the work place and has been unable to obtain

an address for process of service upon Defendant Bean.” Doc. #26 at 2. This request fails

to show what efforts, if any, have been made to try to locate Defendant Bean. Thus, the

Case 2:07-cv-02170-JAT Document 28 Filed 04/16/08 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 -

Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to show excusable neglect for his request to extend this

expired deadline. See Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 6(b). Accordingly, the request for extension will be

denied. Further, Plaintiff has failed to show cause for his failure to timely serve and, as a

result, Defendant Bean will be dismissed.

Based on the foregoing, 

IT IS ORDERED that Defendants Shuttleport Arizona Joint Venture, Shuttleport

Holdings, Inc., Veolia Transportation Services, Inc., and Robert Bean are dismissed, without

prejudice, as a result of Plaintiff’s failure to timely serve them under Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 4(m).

DATED this 16th day of April, 2008.

Case 2:07-cv-02170-JAT Document 28 Filed 04/16/08 Page 3 of 3