Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-04633/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-04633-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 110
Nature of Suit: Insurance
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Insurance Contract

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WILMER D. ORIGEL,

Plaintiff(s),

v.

THE NORTHWESTERN MUTUAL LIFE

INSURANCE COMPANY,

Defendant(s).

___________________________________/

Case No. C-05-4633 JCS

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S

MOTION TO DISMISS [Docket No. 16]

AND VACATING HEARING

Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss (the “Motion”) [Docket No. 16]. Defendant argued that

this case should be dismissed based on an untimely service of process under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m)

and the orders of this Court. The Court finds the Motion suitable for resolution without oral

argument, and VACATES the hearing previously set for August 11, 2006, at 1:30 p.m. (The Case

Management Conference set for the same date and time REMAINS ON CALENDAR.)

Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m), service of process is required within 120 days after the filing of

the complaint, or within such time as the court may order beyond that date. Under this rule, in the

event that the plaintiff shows good cause for the failure to serve, the court is required to extend the

time for service of process for an appropriate period of time. Even where good cause is not shown,

the Court retains discretion to relieve Plaintiff of the consequences of its failure. See Fed. R. Civ. P.

4(m) Advisory Committee’s Note; Oyama v. Sheehan, 253 F.3d 507, 513 (9th Cir. 2001). In this

case, the complaint was served one day after the deadline set by the Court.

The Court exercises its discretion and declines to dismiss the complaint. Plaintiff delivered

the complaint for service of process on June 1, 2006, and requested “rush” service. Under these

circumstances, the sanction of dismissal for service one day late is too harsh. Moreover,

Case 3:05-cv-04633-JCS Document 33 Filed 08/07/06 Page 1 of 2
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

2

Defendant’s recitations of prejudice are far too general to demonstrate prejudice from this one-day

delay. 

Accordingly, the Motion is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 4, 2006

___________________________

JOSEPH C. SPERO

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:05-cv-04633-JCS Document 33 Filed 08/07/06 Page 2 of 2