Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_07-cv-04144/USCOURTS-cand-5_07-cv-04144-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 20:1401 Education: Handicapped Child Act

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT FOR INEFFECTIVE SERVICE OF PROCESS ON CONDITION OF

PAYMENT OF FEES—No. C-07-04144 RMW

MAG

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

E-FILED on 3/26/08

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

AIDEN T., a minor, by and through GINNIE

T., his Guardian Ad Litem,

Plaintiff,

v.

PAJARO VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL

DISTRICT and DOES 1-25,

Defendants.

No. C-07-04144 RMW

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO DISMISS

THE COMPLAINT FOR INEFFECTIVE

SERVICE OF PROCESS ON CONDITION

OF PAYMENT OF FEES

[Re Docket No. 5]

Plaintiff claims that the Pajaro Valley Unified School District ("District") denied him a free

appropriate public education ("FAPE"), in violation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education

Improvement Act ("IDEA"), 20 U.S.C. § 1415. After an evidentiary hearing, the California Office

of Administrative Hearings ("OAH") determined that the District had generally offered plaintiff a

FAPE, issuing a final decision on May 11, 2007. Decl. of Kimberly Smith ¶ 2; Compl. ¶ 1. On

August 13, 2007, plaintiff filed the instant action to appeal the administrative decision.

Federal and state law provide that a party may seek review in federal court of adverse

administrative decision within 90 days from the date of the receipt of decision. 20 U.S.C. §

1415(i)(2)(B); Cal. Educ. Code § 56505(k). The District contends that plaintiff filed his complaint

Case 5:07-cv-04144-RMW Document 14 Filed 03/26/08 Page 1 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT FOR INEFFECTIVE SERVICE OF PROCESS ON CONDITION OF

PAYMENT OF FEES—No. C-07-04144 RMW

MAG 2

94 days after receipt (and, should this action continue, will likely raise a statute of limitations

defense), but assumes for purposes of this motion that plaintiff timely his complaint in this court.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) requires a plaintiff to serve defendants with a copy of

the complaint within 120 days of filing. Rule 4(m) provides

If 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 or order that service be made within a specified time. 

But if the plaintiff shows good cause for the failure, the court must extend the time

for service for an appropriate period.

There is no dispute that plaintiff failed to comply with this requirement. Plaintiff was required to

serve a copy of the complaint on the District on or before December 11, 2007. Instead, he served a

copy of the complaint on the District on January 10, 2008, which was thirty days after the deadline

for service expired. 

The District now moves to dismiss the complaint under Rule 4(m) due to plaintiff's failure to

serve the complaint within 120 days. Plaintiff submitted a written opposition to the District's motion

late in the day on February 28, 2008 – nearly a week after his response was due under this court's

local rules. See N.D. Cal. L.R. 7-3 (providing that an opposition to a motion must be served and

filed not less than 21 days before the hearing date). On March 10, 2008, following a scheduled ECF

outage, the District filed a reply to plaintiff's opposition.

As set forth above, Rule 4(m) provides that if the plaintiff shows good cause for its failure to

comply with the time limit for service, the court must extend the time service for an appropriate

period. "Rule 4(m) requires a two-step analysis in deciding whether or not to extend the prescribed

time period for the service of a complaint. [] First, upon a showing of good cause for the defective

service, the court must extend the time period. Second, if there is no good cause, the court has the

discretion to dismiss without prejudice or to extend the time period." In re Sheehan, 253 F.3d 507,

512 (9th Cir. 2001) (citations omitted). A district court may grant an extension of time retroactively,

so that a plaintiff's untimely service may be deemed timely. Mann v. Am. Airlines, 324 F.3d 1088,

1090 (9th Cir. 2003).

Plaintiff failed to timely respond to the District's motion and his opposition does not even

attempt to demonstrate good cause for his failure to serve the complaint in a timely fashion. For an

Case 5:07-cv-04144-RMW Document 14 Filed 03/26/08 Page 2 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT FOR INEFFECTIVE SERVICE OF PROCESS ON CONDITION OF

PAYMENT OF FEES—No. C-07-04144 RMW

MAG 3

excuse to meet the good cause standard, a court may require a plaintiff to show the following

factors: "(a) the party to be served received actual notice of the lawsuit; (b) the defendant would

suffer no prejudice; and (c) plaintiff would be severely prejudiced if his complaint were dismissed." 

In re Sheehan, 253 F.3d 507, 512 (9th Cir. 2001). Plaintiff does not demonstrate that any of these is

true except that plaintiff’s complaint would not be able to be refiled, if dismissed.

Rule 9(m) permits courts to extend the service deadline even absent a showing of good

cause. The court will reluctantly do so here despite plaintiff’s lack of diligence in pursing this

litigation. The court held an initial case management conference at which plaintiff failed to appear. 

The court's minute order following the case management conference indicated that it would issue an

order to show cause for failure to appear. Docket No. 3. A month later on December 26, 2007,

plaintiff's counsel filed a document titled "Plaintiff's Response to Order to Show Cause for Failure to

Appear at Case Management Conference" stating that plaintiff's family had moved out of the state of

California shortly after the action was filed and that plaintiff's counsel had held off service upon the

District to allow plaintiff's family to get set up in their new home. Docket No. 4. The response

promised to complete service upon the District by January 11, 2008. Id.

Plaintiff's counsel followed through on this statement and apparently served the District on

January 10, 2007, explaining to the District's counsel that in waiting for plaintiff's family to get

settled he "really messed up the calendaring of the case and dropped the case off [his] radar." Smith

Decl., Ex. A. But plaintiff's initial failure to effect service combined with his untimely response to

the District's motion to dismiss evidences to the court an unfortunate disregard for advancing this

case, particularly given plaintiff's counsel's tardiness in serving school district defendants in a

previous case. See E.N. v. Byron Union School Dist., 2007 WL 926879 at *1 (N.D. Cal. 2007)

(Breyer, J.). Although Judge Breyer elected not to exercise his discretion to dismiss that case for

failure to timely effect service, the circumstances are different here and could justify dismissal. 

Here, in contrast to the Byron Union School District case, there is no indication that the District was

aware that the instant complaint was pending against them until they were untimely served with the

complaint. Nevertheless, the District has not shown any significant prejudice if the case is allowed to

go forward.

Case 5:07-cv-04144-RMW Document 14 Filed 03/26/08 Page 3 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT FOR INEFFECTIVE SERVICE OF PROCESS ON CONDITION OF

PAYMENT OF FEES—No. C-07-04144 RMW

MAG 4

The court finds that the District's motion to dismiss had merit despite the court's denial of it

and that the District would have been remiss if it had not sought dismissal under the circumstances. 

Therefore, the court conditions its denial of the District's motion on plaintiff's counsel's payment of

the District's reasonable attorney's fees incurred for making its motion to dismiss and for the court

appearance for the hearing on the motion. The District is ordered to file a declaration within ten days

of this order setting forth an itemization its hours spent and hourly rate charged for its attorney's fees

incurred in connection with its motion to dismiss. Plaintiff's counsel must pay whatever amount of

those fees approved by the court within ten days of the filing of the court's approval or the case will

be dismissed without further warning or notice. 

ORDER

For the forgoing reasons, the court orders that the motion to dismiss is denied on the

condition that plaintiff's counsel pay the amount of defendant's attorney's fees within ten days of the

court's approval of the amount.

DATED: 3/26/08

RONALD M. WHYTE

United States District Judge

Case 5:07-cv-04144-RMW Document 14 Filed 03/26/08 Page 4 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT FOR INEFFECTIVE SERVICE OF PROCESS ON CONDITION OF

PAYMENT OF FEES—No. C-07-04144 RMW

MAG 5

Notice of this document has been electronically sent to:

Counsel for Plaintiff:

Bob Varma bvarma@varmaclancy.com 

Counsel for Defendants:

Kimberly Anne Smith ksmith@fagenfriedman.com 

Laurie Elizabeth Reynolds lreynolds@fagenfriedman.com 

Counsel are responsible for distributing copies of this document to co-counsel that have not

registered for e-filing under the court's CM/ECF program.

Dated: 3/26/08 /s/ MAG

Chambers of Judge Whyte

Case 5:07-cv-04144-RMW Document 14 Filed 03/26/08 Page 5 of 5