Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-00937/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-00937-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

Allan Sobol, d/b/a Quick and Legal

Paralegal Services,

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Linda Grau and Donald F. Steward, 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 07-0937-PHX-SMM

ORDER

Pending before the Court is Defendant Linda Grau’s and Defendant Donald F.

Steward’s (collectively “Defendants”) Motion to Dismiss. (Dkt. 9.) Defendants seek to

dismiss Plaintiff Allan Sobol’s (“Sobol”) Complaint pursuant to Rules 4(m) and 12(b) of the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Dkt. 1.)

BACKGROUND

A. Procedural History

Sobol filed the Complaint on May 8, 2007. (Dkt. 1.) In its “Standard Track Initial

Order” dated May 21, 2007, the Court ordered Sobol to “ effect service of the Complaint and

Summons upon all Defendants no later than 120 days after the filing of the Complaint.”

(Dkt. 3.) The deadline for service was therefore September 5, 2007. No activity in this case

occurred until April 10, 2008 when this Court ordered Sobol to show cause why it should not

dismiss the case under Rules 4(m) and 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Dkt.

4.) Sobol then served Defendants on April 23, 2008. (Dkt. 5, 6.) The Defendants were thus

Case 2:07-cv-00937-SMM Document 12 Filed 07/23/08 Page 1 of 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

- 2 -

served well beyond the 120 day limit required by Rule 4(m) and the Court’s Order.

Defendants filed the instant Motion on May 13, 2008. (Dkt. 9.)

STANDARD OF REVIEW

Rule 4(m) requires the defendant in a case be served within 120 days of the filing of

the complaint. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). The Rule gives the Court discretion to dismiss a claim

or grant an extension of time when a Plaintiff fails to timely serve the Defendants. Id.

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

for service . . .” Id. “At a minimum, good cause means excusable neglect.” Boudette v.

Barnette, 923 F.2d 754, 756 (9th Cir. 1991) (internal quotations omitted). To qualify its

behavior as excusable neglect, a plaintiff may have to show that, inter alia, “plaintiff would

be severely prejudiced if his complaint were dismissed. Id. at 756 (citing Hart v. United

States, 817 F.2d 78, 80-81 (9th Cir. 1987)).

DISCUSSION

Sobol claims personal hardships he suffered immediately following initiation of this

lawsuit were the reason he failed to properly serve Defendants. Sobol asks the Court to

exercise its discretion or decide that these hardships constitute “good cause” for his failure

and extend the service deadline to coincide with his actions on April 23, 2008. While the

Court does sympathize with the life changes Sobol went through, he nonetheless had the duty

to continue to prosecute this matter as required by Rule 4. A lapse of 350 days between the

filing of the Complaint and service on the Defendants greatly exceeds the time period

established by Rule 4(m).

Further, the Court finds that Sobol would not be “severely prejudiced if his complaint

were dismissed.” In Sobol’s own mind, he “presumed that the Court had dismissed the

action” on May 21, 2007 and was “resigned to that inevitably.” (Dkt. 10.) Sobol also admits

he is “still free to re-file a revised complaint and begin the process anew.” Id. Therefore the

Court will grant Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss for failure to serve.

//

Case 2:07-cv-00937-SMM Document 12 Filed 07/23/08 Page 2 of 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

- 3 -

CONCLUSION

In light of the reasons set forth above,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED GRANTING Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. (Dkt.

9.)

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED DISMISSING the Complaint without prejudice and

directing the Clerk of the Court to terminate this matter.

DATED this 23rd day of July, 2008.

Case 2:07-cv-00937-SMM Document 12 Filed 07/23/08 Page 3 of 3