Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-01932/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-01932-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 15:1692 Fair Debt Collection Act

---

1

15CV1932 BEN (KSC)

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ADRIANNA PEDRIN,

Plaintiff,

v.

JUDGE LAW FIRM,

Defendant.

Case No.: 15CV1932 BEN (KSC)

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO 

DISMISS FOR IMPROPER 

SERVICE

[Docket No. 7]

Plaintiff’s second motion to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) 1 was granted on 

January 4, 2016 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1) and the Court ordered the issuance of 

the summons and service by the U.S. Marshal. Defendant Judge Law Firm now moves to 

dismiss the case pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(4) and (5) for failure 

to timely serve the Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m).

2

Plaintiff has filed an Opposition. (Docket No. 8.) Defendant filed a Reply. (Docket No. 

9.) 

 

1 Plaintiff’s initial motion to proceed IFP was denied with leave to file a renewed application because 

the initial application lacked information necessary to evaluate her ability to pay the required fee. 

2 The Court notes that Defendant’s filing violates Civil Local Rule 7.1(b), requiring movant to obtain a 

hearing date from the clerk of the assigned judge. Defendant did not obtain a hearing date for the 

Motion or notice a hearing date on the Motion. Although the filing could be stricken for these

deficiencies, the Court elects to rule on the Motion given an Opposition and Reply were filed the same 

day the Motion was filed.

Case 3:15-cv-01932-BEN-KSC Document 11 Filed 03/30/16 Page 1 of 3
2

15CV1932 BEN (KSC)

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

Defendant argues that the Complaint must be dismissed because it was not served 

within 120 days of the date the Plaintiff filed her Complaint, August 31, 2015. However,

as Plaintiff notes, the Motion fails to acknowledge or address that the action could not 

proceed until January 4, 2016, when this Court allowed the action to proceed IFP. 

Defendant does not cite any authority supporting dismissal for failing to serve pursuant to 

Rule 4(m) under these circumstances. 

Numerous courts have determined that when an IFP application is ultimately 

granted, the 120-day period under Rule 4(m) begins when the IFP application is granted. 

Matthews v. Marten Transp., Ltd., 354 F. Supp. 899, 902 (W.D. Wis. 2005) (finding 120-

day period begins when plaintiff’s motion to proceed IFP is granted); see Ruiz v. Hill 

Mgmt. LLC, 2006 WL 1113703, at *2 (D. Or. 2006) (finding 120-day period begins with 

court’s acceptance of amended IFP complaint and issuance of summons following 

dismissal of initial IFP complaint); see also Robinson v. America’s Best Contacts and 

Eyeglasses, 876 F.2d 596, 598 (7th Cir. 1989) (finding 120-day period did not begin 

when the complaint was originally presented to the court with IFP application). 

Defendant concedes that service was accomplished on March 4, 2016, well within 120 

days of the Court’s grant of Plaintiff’s IFP application and issuance of the summons on 

January 4, 2016. 

Additionally, were the Court to diverge from this approach and begin the 120-day 

period when the initial Complaint was filed with the Court, Plaintiff would be entitled to 

an extension of the time for service. Under Rule 4(m), if plaintiff shows good cause for 

the failure [to serve within 120 days], the court must extend the time for service for an 

appropriate period.” Rule 4(c)(1) requires that a summons be served with a copy of the 

complaint. Plaintiff could not serve the summons with the Complaint until the summons 

was issued. As Plaintiff notes in Opposition, the action was not authorized to proceed 

and the summons was not issued by the Clerk until the Court granted Plaintiff’s request 

to proceed IFP and ordered the summons issued. This would warrant an extension of the 

Case 3:15-cv-01932-BEN-KSC Document 11 Filed 03/30/16 Page 2 of 3
3

15CV1932 BEN (KSC)

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

time to serve.

Defendant’s Motion is DENIED. Given Defendant’s Answer was due on March 

28, 2016, the Court orders Defendant to file an Answer within three days of the filing of 

this Order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 30, 2016

Case 3:15-cv-01932-BEN-KSC Document 11 Filed 03/30/16 Page 3 of 3