Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-00760/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-00760-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 350
Nature of Suit: Motor Vehicle Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Tort/Non-Motor Vehicle

---

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

Oliver Reishus and Roxanne Brinker,

husband and wife,

Plaintiffs, 

vs.

Efran Almaraz and Alejandra Estrada,

individually as husband and wife, d/b/a EA

Trucking; Paulo Egusquiza and Jane Doe

Egusquiza, individually and as husband

and wife, d/b/a Best Tires Distributors;

Eduardo Merino, a single man,

Defendants. _________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-10-0760-PHX-LOA

ORDER AND

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

This matter is before the Court on the parties’ Joint Motion to Quash Service of

Process Upon Defendant Eduardo Merino and Request for Order Regarding Testimony of

Eduardo Merino. (Doc. 97)

Plaintiffs attempted to serve Eduardo Merino through Truck Process Agents of

America (“TPAA”). TPAA accepted service of the Amended Complaint and Summons,

which named Mr. Merino as a defendant. In the pending joint motion, the parties agree

that TPAA did not have authority to accept service on behalf of Mr. Merino, and that

service on TPAA was insufficient to effect lawful service upon Mr. Merino. (Doc. 97) 

In view of the parties’ agreement that service on Eduardo Merino was insufficient, the

Court will grant the joint motion to quash service of process upon him.

Case 2:10-cv-00760-LOA Document 100 Filed 02/28/11 Page 1 of 4
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. Improper Service

When a plaintiff fails to serve a defendant in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 4, and does not show good cause for such failure, the district court “on motion

or on its own after notice to the plaintiff--must dismiss the action without prejudice

against that defendant or order that service be made within a specified time.” Rule 4,

Fed.R.Civ.P.; Stanley v. Goodwin, 475 F.Supp.2d 1026, 1034-35 (D.Haw. 2006), aff’d,

262 F. App’x 786 (9th Cir. 2007). “[B]ut if the plaintiff shows good cause for the failure,

the court must extend the time for service for an appropriate period.” Rule 4, Fed.

R.Civ.P. “District courts have broad discretion to extend time for service under Rule

4(m).” Efaw v. Williams, 473 F.3d 1038, 1041 (9th Cir. 2007). Rule 4(m) “requires a

district court to grant an extension of time when the plaintiff shows good cause for the

delay,” but it “ permits the district court to grant an extension even in the absence of good

cause.” Id. at 1040 (emphases in original). “In making extension decisions under Rule

4(m) a district court may consider factors ‘like a statute of limitations bar, prejudice to the

defendant, actual notice of a lawsuit, and eventual service.’” Id. at 1041 (quoting Troxell

v. Fedders of N. Am., Inc., 160 F.3d 381, 383 (7th Cir. 1998)).

Because Mr. Merino has not been properly served within 120 days of the filing of

the Second Amended Complaint on September 30, 2010, doc. 53, which added him as a

party, the Court will order Plaintiffs to properly serve Mr. Merino with process on or

before March 31, 2011, or Plaintiffs shall show cause on or before the same date why Mr.

Merino should not be dismissed from this lawsuit. Absent timely notice to the Court of

lawful service or a showing of good cause, Mr. Merino will be dismissed with prejudice

as a party to this lawsuit. Dismissal of Mr. Merino from this lawsuit would remove any

doubt that this District Court may not have complete diversity and subject matter

jurisdiction over this case.

The parties also request that the Court enter an order regarding the use of Mr.

Merino’s testimony at trial and expert disclosures relating to Mr. Merino’s testimony. 

The parties’ representations during the Rule 16 conference and prior filings indicate that

Case 2:10-cv-00760-LOA Document 100 Filed 02/28/11 Page 2 of 4
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

1

 Motions to extend deadlines must comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

6(b).

- 3 -

they have been unable to locate Mr. Merino. (doc. 99 discussing efforts to locate Mr.

Merino) Because Mr. Merino’s whereabouts are currently unknown, the Court finds it

premature to enter any orders regarding the use of his testimony or related matters. The

deadlines set forth in the Scheduling Order, as amended on February 2, 2011, are firm and

binding. (docs. 18, 91) However, the Court would consider motions to modify relevant

deadlines1

 or enter appropriate orders pertaining to Mr. Merino’s testimony in the event

he is located through the exercise of due diligence and in the absence of evidence of bad

faith. 

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that the Joint Motion to Quash Service of Process Upon

Defendant Eduardo Merino, doc. 97, is GRANTED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Joint Request for Order Regarding

Testimony of Eduardo Merino, doc. 97, is DENIED without prejudice.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Court’s February 23, 2011 Order, doc. 99,

is VACATED to the extent that it directed Defendants Almaraz, EA Trucking, their nonparty liability insurance, and defense counsel to file a status report “providing the details

of their efforts to determine Eduardo Merino’s whereabouts, the non-privileged information discovered in that regards, his willingness to cooperate with Plaintiffs’ discovery

efforts and comply with this order.” (Doc. 99) 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs shall properly serve Mr. Merino

with process on or before Thursday, March 31, 2011 or Plaintiffs shall show cause on or

before Thursday, March 31, 2011 why Mr. Merino should not be dismissed from this

lawsuit. Absent timely notice to the Court of proper service or a showing of good cause 

Case 2:10-cv-00760-LOA Document 100 Filed 02/28/11 Page 3 of 4
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

- 4 -

before the March 31, 2011, Mr. Merino will be dismissed as a party to this lawsuit with

prejudice. 

Dated this 25th day of February, 2011.

Case 2:10-cv-00760-LOA Document 100 Filed 02/28/11 Page 4 of 4