Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_24-cv-02096/USCOURTS-azd-2_24-cv-02096-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Civil Rights 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

Jim Collins,

Plaintiff,

v. 

Claire Miller, et al.,

Defendants.

No. CV-24-02096-PHX-MTL

ORDER 

Before the Court is Plaintiff Jim Collins’s Motion to Extend Time for Service of 

Process (Doc. 20). The Motion asks the Court for an additional thirty days to serve 

Defendants Frans Tax and Daniel Sadoway. (Id. at 1.) The Motion explains Defendants 

Tax and Sadoway have already been properly served, but it asks for a thirty-day extension 

because Plaintiff believes both Defendants will dispute the validity of their service. (See 

id. at 2-3, 5.)

Plaintiff filed his Complaint (Doc. 1) in the Arizona Superior Court on May 03, 

2024. (Doc. 1-1 at 38-62.) After Plaintiff nearly missed his first deadline to serve process, 

the Arizona Superior Court granted him a ninety-day extension. (See id. at 75.) That 

extended deadline expired on October 30, 2024. (See Doc. 20 at 4.)

Defendant Tax was served process on October 29, 2024. (See id. at 2; Doc. 21.) On 

that date, a process server went to Defendant Tax’s residence and left “a copy of the 

summons, complaint, and first amended complaint” with Defendant Tax’s son. (See 

Doc. 20 at 2.) The son “confirmed that he was over the age of 18 and that he resided at the 

Case 2:24-cv-02096-MTL Document 24 Filed 12/04/24 Page 1 of 3
- 2 -

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

residence with his father and mother” before receiving service. (See id.) The process server 

who left the documents with Defendant Tax’s son completed a certificate of service

attesting to these events. (See Doc. 21.)

Defendant Sadoway was then served process on October 30, 2024. (Doc. 20 at 4.) 

On that date, a process server went to Defendant Sadoway’s work and left “[a] copy of the 

complaint and summons” with an employee who stated they were “authorized to accept 

service” for Defendant Sadoway. (See Doc. 20 at 4; Doc. 22.) An affidavit attesting to these 

events was signed by the process server who left the documents at Defendant Sadoway’s 

work. (Doc. 22.)

Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires a plaintiff to effectuate 

service of process within ninety days after filing their complaint. If a plaintiff does not 

meet the ninety-day window, “Rule 4(m) provides two avenues for relief. The first is 

mandatory: the district court must extend time for service upon a showing of good cause. 

The second is discretionary: if good cause is not established, the district court may extend 

time for service upon a showing of excusable neglect.” Lemoge v. United States, 587 F.3d 

1188, 1198 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal citations omitted).

Avenues of relief under Rule 4(m) are only available when a plaintiff has not 

effectuated service within the required deadline. See id. Defendants Tax and Sadoway were 

served process on or before October 30, 2024. (See Doc. 20 at 2, 4; see also Docs. 21, 22.)

Thus, Plaintiff does not need a thirty-day extension because it appears that both Defendants 

were served before the deadline provided by the Arizona Superior Court. (See Doc. 1-1 at 

75; Docs. 21, 22.)

In addition, “[t]he burden of establishing good cause under Fed. R. Civ. P 4(m) is 

on the plaintiff.” Navarro v. United States, CV-23-01239-PHX-DMF, 2024 WL 3498361, 

at *5 (D. Ariz. Apr. 25, 2024) (citing Boudette v. Barnette, 923 F.2d 754, 755 (9th Cir. 

1991)). And here, the Motion does not provide any specific reasoning for why a thirty-day 

extension is needed. Instead, it merely states both Defendants have engaged in misconduct 

in the past, and Plaintiff therefore believes they will likely engage in misconduct again to 

Case 2:24-cv-02096-MTL Document 24 Filed 12/04/24 Page 2 of 3
- 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

dispute the validity of their service. (See Doc. 20 at 2-4.) The Motion, however, does not 

provide any evidence to support Plaintiff’s belief that misconduct has or will occur. 

Therefore, Plaintiff’s belief is nothing more than a bare allegation of wrongdoing that is

insufficient to establish good cause. See Hearst v. West, 31 Fed. Appx. 366, 368-69 (9th 

Cir. 2002). Without good cause, there is no requirement for the Court to extend the deadline

for service. See Lemoge, 587 F.3d at 1198.

Finally, the Court declines to exercise its discretion to extend service thirty more 

days. See id. A person of suitable age and residence accepted service on behalf of 

Defendant Tax. (See Doc. 20 at 2; Doc. 21.) And a process server left “[a] copy of the 

complaint and summons” with an employee who stated they were “authorized to accept 

service” for Defendant Sadoway.” (See Doc. 20 at 4; Doc. 22.) If either Defendant believes 

their service was improper, they can dispute that issue at a later date. 

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED denying Plaintiff’s Motion (Doc. 20).

Dated this 4th day of December, 2024.

Case 2:24-cv-02096-MTL Document 24 Filed 12/04/24 Page 3 of 3