Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_09-cv-08138/USCOURTS-azd-3_09-cv-08138-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 18:241 Conspiracy Against Citizen Rights

---

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

Lynnell Levingston, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Patricia Piburn, et al.,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-09-8138-PCT-LOA

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Second Motion for Expenses for

Failure to Waive. (docket # 85) Plaintiff seeks to recover expenses incurred due to the

failure of several defendants to waive service of process. Plaintiff filed the pending motion

on March 10, 2010, while this matter was stayed and on the Court’s inactive calendar. In a

March 25, 2010 Order, the Court returned this matter to the active calendar. In view of the

procedural history of this case, the Court permitted Defendants until April 9, 2010 to respond

to Plaintiff’s motion. (docket # 89) Although the deadline has passed, none of the

Defendants identified in Plaintiff’s motion has filed a response. Despite Defendants’ failure

to respond, Plaintiff has not shown that she is entitled to recover expenses for failure to waive

service. 

I. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(d)(2)

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(d)(2) provides that:

If a defendant located within the United States fails, without good 

cause, to sign and return a waiver requested by a plaintiff located 

within the United States, the court must impose on the defendant:

Case 3:09-cv-08138-LOA Document 95 Filed 06/10/10 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 -

(A) the expenses later incurred in making service; and

(B) the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, of any motion

required to collect those service expenses.

Id. A plaintiff may recover expenses pursuant to Rule 4(d)(2) even if she does not

ultimately prevail in the action. Estate of Darulis v. Garate, 401 F.3d 1060, 1064 (9th Cir.

2005). 

If a plaintiff does not produce admissible evidence showing that the defendant

refused a request to waive service, a district court should deny the Rule 4(d)(2) motion. 

Royal Travel, Inc. v. Shell Management Hawaii, Inc., No. 08-00314-JMS-LEK, 2010 WL

167954, at * (D. Hawai’i 2010), amended by, Royal Travel, Inc. v. Shell Management

Hawaii, Inc., 2010 WL 932007 (D.Hawai’i 2010) (awarding expenses under Rule 4(d) after

plaintiff provided sufficient evidence of mailing waiver requests to defendants). There is

good cause for failing to waive service if the defendant never received the request for waiver

of service. Id. (citing Double S. Truck Line, Inc. v. Frozen Food Express, 171 F.R.D. 251,

253 (D. Minn. 1997)). However, “[i]t is not good cause for failure to waive service that the

claim is unjust or that the court lacks jurisdiction.” Royal Travel, 2010 WL 167954, at * 3

(citing Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(d), advisory committee note (1993 Amendments)). 

II. Analysis

In her pending motion, Plaintiff states that Defendants Earle, Garms, McClain,

Haverstick, Chavez, Patricia Piburn, Raymon Piburn, and Kenneth Isaacson “failed to sign

and return the requested Waiver of Service Summons, required by Rule 4 of the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure.” (docket # 85) Plaintiff does not identify the dates on which she

mailed the requests to waive the service of summons to each Defendant identified in her

motion. Plaintiff merely refers to “attachment 1” as evidence that she mailed requests for

waiver of service of summons to Defendants Earle, Garms, McClain, Haverstick, Chavez,

Patricia Piburn, Raymon Piburn, and Kenneth Isaacson. (docket # 85 at 1) Plaintiff’s

motion, however, does not include an “attachment 1” or other any other exhibits regarding

Case 3:09-cv-08138-LOA Document 95 Filed 06/10/10 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 -

mailing a request for waiver of service to Defendants Earle, Garms, McClain, Haverstick,

Chavez, Patricia Piburn, Raymon Piburn, and Kenneth Isaacson. 

Plaintiff previously filed an similar motion for expenses for failure to waive

service which the Court denied, without prejudice, as premature. (dockets # 65, # 66) 

Unlike the pending motion, Plaintiff’s first motion included an “attachment 1.” (docket #

65) However, that attachment is merely a blank “Waiver of Service of Summons Form”

and contains no information regarding the dates on which Plaintiff allegedly mailed such

forms to Defendants Earle, Garms, McClain, Haverstick, Chavez, Patricia Piburn, Raymon

Piburn, and Kenneth Isaacson. 

In view of the lack of evidence that establishing that Plaintiff mailed requests for

waiver of service to Defendants Earle, Garms, McClain, Haverstick, Chavez, Patricia

Piburn, Raymon Piburn, and Kenneth Isaacson and that these Defendants allegedly refused

to waive service, the Court will deny Plaintiff’s Rule 4(d)(2) motion.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Second Motion for Expenses for Failure to

Waive, docket # 85, is DENIED with prejudice. 

 DATED this 10th day of June, 2010.

Case 3:09-cv-08138-LOA Document 95 Filed 06/10/10 Page 3 of 3