Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_06-cv-00225/USCOURTS-azd-4_06-cv-00225-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 791
Nature of Suit: Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA)
Cause of Action: 29:1001 E.R.I.S.A.: Employee Retirement

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

PETER POTOTSKY, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

ATLAS AIR, INC., et. al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 06-225-FRZ-CRP

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

This case was removed to this Court on May 5, 2006 (Doc 1) and on May 23, 2006,

Plaintiff filed his First Amended Complaint (Doc 14). After leave from the Court, Plaintiff

filed his Second Amended Complaint on January 30, 2007. (Doc 65). Rule 4(m) of the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that “[i]f a defendant is not served within 120 days

after the complaint is filed, the court - on motion or on its own after notice to the plaintiff -

must dismiss the action without prejudice against that defendant . . .” A showing of good

cause for the failure to serve can extend the time for service. Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(m). Plaintiff

bears the burden of showing good cause for failure to serve a party within 120 days and

“good cause” is more than simple inadvertence, mistake, or ignorance. See Townsel v.

County of Contra Costa, 820 F.2d 319, 320 (9th Cir.1987) (ignorance of Rule 4(m) does not

constitute good cause); see also King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir.1987) (“Pro se

litigants must follow the same rules of procedure that govern other litigants.”). 

In excess of 120 days having passed since this action was filed, and service has not

been completed on Defendants John Does 1-5, Thomas J Kassin, Ford, Harrison, and AMR

Case 4:06-cv-00225-FRZ Document 196 Filed 01/05/10 Page 1 of 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

- 2 -

Corporation. In the absence of Plaintiff showing good cause for failure to serve these

defendants, this action is subject to dismissal without prejudice as to these defendants.

On November 20, 2009, Magistrate Judge Pyle ordered Plaintiff to provide the Court

with an affidavit showing good cause why any claims alleged against the above-named

defendants should not be dismissed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) and

those defendants terminated from this case. (Doc 190). Plaintiff had up to and including

Monday, December 28, 2009 to file an affidavit. Plaintiff did not respond to the Magistrate

Judge’s order to show cause. 

Recommendation

Magistrate Judge Pyle recommends that the District Court dismiss without prejudice

the claims against Defendants John Does 1-5, Thomas J Kassin, Ford, Harrison, and AMR

Corporation and terminate these defendants from the case. Plaintiff never served these

defendants and the time to serve them has expired. Plaintiff has not provided this Court with

good cause showing why these defendants and any claims against them should not be

dismissed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m).

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), any party may file and serve written objections within

14 days after being served with a copy of this Report and Recommendation. If objections

are not timely filed, the party’s right to de novo review may be waived. See United States

v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir.2003) (en banc), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 900

(2003). If objections are filed, the parties should direct them to the District Court by using

the following case number: CV 06-225-TUC-FRZ.

The Clerk of the Court is direct to send a copy of this Report and Recommendation

to all parties.

DATED this 4th day of January, 2010.

Case 4:06-cv-00225-FRZ Document 196 Filed 01/05/10 Page 2 of 2