Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-01626/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-01626-0/pdf.json

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

---

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

Weltha Jones-Rankins, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Cardinal Health, Inc., 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 10-01626-PHX-FJM

ORDER

The court has before it defendant's motion to dismiss (doc. 14), plaintiff's response

(doc. 18), and defendant's reply (doc. 20).

On August 2, 2010 plaintiff filed this Title VII action alleging racial discrimination

and retaliation. Defendant moves to dismiss the complaint for insufficient process and service

of process pursuant to Rule 12(b)(4) and Rule 12(b)(5), Fed. R. Civ. P. Defendant argues

that plaintiff failed to properly serve defendant under federal rules, the rules of Arizona, or

the rules of Ohio. Plaintiff denies many of defendant's allegations of deficient service, but

does admit that she failed to file proof of service. Plaintiff now submits a copy of a U.S.

Postal Service Delivery Confirmation Receipt which, she states, constitutes proof of delivery.

See Response, ex. D. 

Case 2:10-cv-01626-FJM Document 23 Filed 04/04/11 Page 1 of 4
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 -

"A federal court is without personal jurisdiction over a defendant unless the defendant

has been served in accordance with Rule 4, Fed. R. Civ. P." Benny v. Pipes, 799 F.2d 489,

492 (9th Cir. 1986). A plaintiff must serve defendant with a copy of the summons and

complaint within 120 days of the filing of the complaint. Rule 4(m), Fed. R. Civ. P. A

plaintiff may serve a corporation according to the federal rules, the service of process rules

that apply in the state in which the federal district court is located, or if service is effected in

another state, the rules of that state. Rule 4(h)(1)(A). Here, service of process will be upheld

if it conforms to federal, Arizona, or Ohio's service of process rules.

Plaintiff failed to comply with the federal rules. Service of process upon a corporation

requires delivery, or personal service by someone other than the plaintiff. See Robinson v.

Heritage Elementary Sch., No. CV-09-0541-PHX-LOA, 2009 WL 1578313, *2 (D. Ariz.

June 3, 2009). Here, plaintiff, herself, purportedly mailed a copy of the summons and

complaint to an Eric Meyers, who works in defendant's legal department in Ohio. Clearly

this is insufficient to properly effect service on defendant. See Rule 4(h)(1)(B); Rule 4(c)(2)

(stating that a party may not serve a summons and complaint).

The Arizona rule for serving a corporation, Rule 4.1(k), is remarkably similar to

Federal Rule 4(h)(1). Rule 4.1(k) requires "delivering a copy of the summons and of the

pleading to a partner, an office, a managing or general agent, or to any agent authorized by

appointment or by law." Arizona law is unclear on whether delivery implies personal

service, as is the case under the federal rule. See Savarese v. Edrick Transfer & Storage,

Inc., 513 F.2d 140, 144 (9th Cir. 1975) (discussing service by certified mail upon a corporate

employee and not addressing whether that was sufficient under the Arizona rules); see also

Mealer v. GMAC Mortg. LLC, No. 3:10-cv-08172, 2010 WL 4586183 (D. Ariz. Nov. 2,

2010). Setting this issue aside, Arizona allows service by mail upon parties "outside the

state[.]" Rule 4.2(c), Az.R.Civ.P. Here, the complaint does not reveal where defendant

resides. It is undisputed, however, that defendant has a location in Arizona as plaintiff was

employed there. Complaint ¶ 13. Plaintiff's attempted service by mail was thus ineffective.

Even if defendant is outside the state, plaintiff's service is still deficient because she did not

Case 2:10-cv-01626-FJM Document 23 Filed 04/04/11 Page 2 of 4
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 -

file an acknowledgment signed under oath or affirmation by defendant in accordance with

the requirements set forth in Rule 4.2(c), Az.R.Civ.P. See Postal Instant Press, Inc. v. Corral

Rests., 186 Ariz. 535, 262, 925 P.2d 260, 537 (1996), supplemented on reconsideration, 187

Ariz. 487, 930 P.2d 1001 (1997). Plaintiff's delivery confirmation receipt is insufficient as

it does not indicate what she mailed, does not confirm defendant's receipt, and does not

comply with Rule 4.2(c)'s other requirements.

Having failed to properly serve defendant under either federal or Arizona law, we turn

to Ohio law. Ohio requires service by certified or express mail to be made by the clerk of

the court. Ohio Rule 4.1(A). The rule also sets forth additional requirements, none of which

plaintiff complied with. Accordingly, plaintiff's attempt to serve process herself by priority

mail does not comply with Ohio rules.

We also reject plaintiff's argument that defendant's appearance in the case constituted

a waiver of service. The procedure for what constitutes waiver of service is governed by

federal, not state rules. A notice of appearance in federal court does not waive service of

process as long as the defendant preserves the defense of insufficient process in its first

responsive pleading. See Rule 12(h), Fed. R. Civ. P. Defendant did just that. See doc. 12.

Plaintiff failed to effect proper service under federal, Arizona, or Ohio rules. We

already granted plaintiff an extension under Rule 4(m), Fed.R.Civ.P. to complete service of

process despite a lack of good cause. The Rule 16 Scheduling Conference is set for April 22,

2011. Defendant asks that we dismiss the complaint with prejudice. We find that too harsh.

Rule 4(m) allows for dismissal without prejudice or an extension of time, with or without a

showing of good cause. See Mann v. Am. Airlines, 324 F.3d 1088, 1090 (9th Cir. 2003)

(citing Henderson v. United States, 517 U.S. 654, 661-62, 116 S.Ct. 1638, 1643 (1996)).

Plaintiff's pro se status does not excuse her from fully complying with the rules of procedure.

Her inability to properly serve defendant twice should compel plaintiff to seek the advice of

counsel. Nevertheless, in our discretion under Rule 4(m), Fed.R.Civ.P., plaintiff shall have

to and including April 13, 2011 to properly serve defendant in accordance with the applicable

law. Failure to properly and timely serve defendant will result in dismissal of this action.

Case 2:10-cv-01626-FJM Document 23 Filed 04/04/11 Page 3 of 4
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

- 4 -

It is ORDERED, subject to the above, DENYING defendant's motion to dismiss (doc.

14).

DATED this 4th day of April, 2011.

Case 2:10-cv-01626-FJM Document 23 Filed 04/04/11 Page 4 of 4