Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-00236/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-00236-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)

---

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

Lisbeth N. Diaz Giron, a married woman

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Community Bridges, Inc., a nonprofit

Arizona corporation; Claudio Arturo

Sinclair, a single man; Michael Smith, a

married man; Does I-XX; XYZ

Corporations I-XX; and Black and White

Partnerships I-XX,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. 2:06-cv-00236

ORDER

Pending before the Court is Defendant Claudio Arturo Sinclair's ("Sinclair") Motion

to Dismiss submitted pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b), 4(m). (Dkt. 9.) Defendant Sinclair

alleges that Plaintiff Lisbeth N. Diaz Giron did not timely serve Sinclair with a Summons in

accordance with this Court's Order dated February 1, 2006, which ordered Plaintiff to "effect

service of the complaint and summons upon all Defendants no later than 120 days after the

filing of the Complaint." (Dkt. 6.)

Under Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the plaintiff shall serve copies

of the summons and complaint on each of the defendants within one hundred and twenty

(120) days of the filing of the Complaint. Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(c)(1), (m). If service is not made

upon a defendant within 120 days, the court must dismiss the action without prejudice as to

that defendant, or may direct that service be effected within a specified time if the plaintiff

shows good cause for the failure. Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(m). Federal courts hold that the 120 day

Case 2:06-cv-00236-SMM Document 11 Filed 08/28/06 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 -

period for timely service runs from the date a Notice of Removal is filed in federal court,

rather than from the date the action is commenced in state court. Eccles v. National

Semiconductor Corp., 10 F.Supp.2d 514, 523 (D.Md. 1998); Randolph v. Hendry, 50

F.Supp.2d 572 (S.D.W.Va. 1999). This reasoning stems from the fact that the federal court

does not obtain an interest in the action, and therefore cannot dictate the terms of service,

until a Notice of Removal is filed. Randolph, 50 F.Supp.2d at 580. However, if removal

does not occur until after state law would demand dismissal for failure to timely serve, then

state law applies and it is dismissed. Wolfe Cycle Sports, Inc. v. Yamaha Motor Corp., 366

F.Supp.2d 885, 887 (D. Neb. 2005).

The Notice of Removal in this action was filed on January 24, 2006, which preceded

the expiration of time to serve under state law, due to extensions granted to Plaintiff Giron

by the state court. See Dkts. 1, 9, Ex. A (service extended to February 8, 2006). Defendant

Sinclair was subsequently timely served on April 21, 2006, which was within 120 days of

the filing of the Notice of Removal.

Accordingly, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED DENYING Defendant Claudio Arturo Sinclair's

Motion to Dismiss. (Dkt. 9.)

DATED this 28th day of August, 2006.

Case 2:06-cv-00236-SMM Document 11 Filed 08/28/06 Page 2 of 2