Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-02212/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-02212-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question: Employment Discrimination

---

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

David Zaire Terry, et al.,

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

AAA Arizona, 

Defendant.

No. CV10-2212 PHX DGC

ORDER 

 This case was filed more than 15 months ago, on October 28, 2010. Doc. 1. 

When the complaint was not served within the 120 days required by Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 4, the Court entered an order on March 9, 2011, requiring pro se Plaintiffs to 

explain why the case should not be dismissed. Doc. 3. After receiving Plaintiff’s 

response, the Court granted an extension until May 26, 2011, for the complaint to be 

served, but warned that the case would be dismissed if service was not completed 

promptly. Doc. 5. Service apparently was attempted by registered mail, an invalid 

means of service under Rule 4. Doc. 6. When no further activity occurred in the case, 

the Court entered an order on July 14, 2011 requiring Plaintiffs to report on the progress 

of the case and again warning that the case would be dismissed if further delayed. 

Doc. 7. 

 Counsel appeared for Plaintiffs on July 28, 2012, and requested leave to file an 

amended complaint. Docs. 8, 9. Willing to afford Plaintiffs limited additional time now 

that they were represented by counsel, the Court entered an order permitting Plaintiffs to 

Case 2:10-cv-02212-DGC Document 25 Filed 02/13/12 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 

seek leave to file an amended complaint by August 25, 2011. Doc. 11. Leave was 

sought, and the Court entered an order on September 26, 2011, requiring Plaintiffs to file 

their amended complaint by October 5, 2011. Doc. 15. Apparently because an amended 

complaint had been filed improperly by counsel on August 25, 2011 (see LRCiv 15.1), no 

further complaint was filed by October 5, 2011. More importantly, the amended 

complaint was not served despite the Local Rule’s requirement that it be served within 14 

days (LRCiv 15.1).1 

 On October 24, 2011, Defendant made a special appearance and asked the Court 

to dismiss the case for lack of service. Doc. 17. The Court’s electronic filing system 

shows that a copy of the motion to dimsiss was served electronically on Plaintiff’s 

counsel at ctarver@tarverlaw.org, the address provided by Plaintiffs’ counsel when she 

appeared in this case, but Plaintiffs did not timiely respond to the motion. Finally, on 

January 24, 2012, Plaintiffs’ counsel filed a response in which she asserted that the 

motion to dismiss was defective in various respects but said nothing about the fact that 

Defendant had never been served with process. Doc. 19. Defendant filed a reply 

(Doc. 20), and the Court concluded that this case must be dismissed for lack of service. 

 On February 11, 2012, Plaintiffs’ counsel filed a document titled “Second 

Response” to the motion to dismiss. Doc. 24. The federal and local rules do not permit 

such a second response, and Plaintiffs’ counsel did not seek leave of Court to file such a 

document. The filing is therefore invalid and will be stricken from the record.2 

In summary, Plaintiffs, when acting pro se, failed to serve Defendants despite the 

Court’s warning that the case would be dismiss if service was not completed by the 

 

1

 The Local Rule assumes that the initial complaint has been served according to 

Rule 4, and thus requires service within 14 days only under Rule 5. In this case, because 

the initial complaint had never been properly served on Defendant, service under Rule 4 

was still required.

2

 The purported second response, in harsh and inappropriate language, blames Defendant 

for not appearing voluntarily and waiving service during the many months this case has been 

pending. The document also asserts that Plaintiff attempted, for the first time, to serve 

Defendant in accordance with Rule 4 on January 27, 2012, but even this service appears to have 

been on a different entity. 

Case 2:10-cv-02212-DGC Document 25 Filed 02/13/12 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 

Court’s deadline. Doc. 3. When counsel appeared in the case more than six months ago, 

the Court granted Plaintiffs additional time, permitting counsel to file an amended 

complaint. Plaintiffs nonetheless failed to serve the complaint within the subsequent six 

months, entirely disregarding the 14-day service requirement in Local Rule 15.1. 

Plaintiffs’ counsel never sought additional time to complete service. Although Plaintiffs’ 

improperly filed “Second Response” claims Plaintiffs recently attempted service, the 

Court finds this last-minute effort, coming 15 months after this case was commenced and 

more than six months after counsel entered the case, is too little too late. The Court has 

afforded Plaintiffs ample opportunity to serve Defendant under the requirements of 

Rule 4, and Plaintiffs have failed timely to do so. 

IT IS ORDERED: 

1. Defendant’s motion to Dismiss (Doc. 17) is granted. 

2. The Second Response (Doc. 24) is stricken. 

3. The Clerk shall terminate this action. 

 Dated this 13th day of February, 2012. 

Case 2:10-cv-02212-DGC Document 25 Filed 02/13/12 Page 3 of 3