Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-00769/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-00769-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 

---

1

3:15-cv-0769-BEN-AGS

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STEVE MACPHERSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, and 

DOES 1 through 100, inclusive,

Defendants.

Case No.: 3:15-cv-0769-BEN-AGS

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO 

DISMISS

Now before the Court is Defendant United States of America’s Motion to Dismiss 

Plaintiff’s Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(5). For the 

reasons discussed below, the Motion is DENIED.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff filed his Complaint against the United States on April 8, 2015. (Doc. No. 

1). Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(i), to serve the United States, a party must:

(A)(i) deliver a copy of the summons and of the complaint to the United States 

attorney for the district where the action is brought—or to an assistant United 

States attorney or clerical employee whom the United States attorney 

designates in a writing filed with the court clerk—or

 (ii) send a copy of each by registered or certified mail to the civil-process 

clerk at the United States attorney’s office; [and]

(B) send a copy of each by registered or certified mail to the Attorney General 

Case 3:15-cv-00769-BEN-AGS Document 17 Filed 02/28/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2

3:15-cv-0769-BEN-AGS

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

of the United States at Washington, D.C.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(i). The time limit for service in effect at the time Plaintiff filed his 

complaint was 120 days. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m).1

Plaintiff did not complete service within the 120 day deadline. The Court held two 

Civil Local Rule 41.1 hearings on Plaintiff’s failure to effect timely service. After the 

first hearing in May, Plaintiff served the Attorney General in Washington, D.C. but not 

the local U.S. Attorney. (Doc. No. 5.) At the second hearing, on October 3, 2016, the 

Court gave Plaintiff until October 31, 2016 to complete proper service. On October 5, 

2016, Plaintiff completed service on the United States by serving the U.S. Attorney for 

the Southern District of California. (Doc. No. 10). Thus, Plaintiff completed service 546 

days after filing his Complaint, and 426 days after the Rule 4(m) deadline to complete 

service.

LEGAL STANDARD

Rule 12(b)(5) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure authorizes a defendant to 

move for dismissal due to insufficient service of process. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(5). When 

a defendant challenges service, the plaintiff bears the burden of establishing the validity 

of service as governed by Rule 4. See Brockmeyer v. May, 383 F.3d 798, 801 (9th Cir.

2004). Under Rule 4(m), plaintiff must prove timely service or show good cause for his 

failure to effect timely service. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). If the plaintiff is unable to satisfy 

his burden of demonstrating effective service, the court has discretion to either dismiss or 

retain the action. See Stevens v. Sec. Pac. Nat'l Bank, 538 F.2d 1387, 1389 (9th Cir.

1976).

/ / /

 

1 Rule 4(m) was amended on December 1, 2015. That amendment shortened the time for 

a plaintiff to serve his or her complaint from 120 days to 90 days. Because Plaintiff filed 

his Complaint before Rule 4(m) was amended, Plaintiff had 120 days to serve his 

Complaint.

Case 3:15-cv-00769-BEN-AGS Document 17 Filed 02/28/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3

3:15-cv-0769-BEN-AGS

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

DISCUSSION

The Court denies the motion to dismiss because Plaintiff ultimately completed 

service within the deadline imposed at the October hearing. Although Plaintiff served the 

Complaint beyond the 120 day deadline under Rule 4(m), the Court excused that delay at 

the hearing and gave Plaintiff another chance to effect proper service. Thus, the Court 

implicitly found that Plaintiff had shown good cause for the delay, or the Court exercised 

its discretion to retain the action. The Court then set a deadline by which service had to 

be accomplished, and Plaintiff met that deadline.

Defendant’s motion is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 27, 2017

Case 3:15-cv-00769-BEN-AGS Document 17 Filed 02/28/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3