Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-02157/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-02157-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 791
Nature of Suit: Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA)
Cause of Action: 29:1132 E.R.I.S.A.-Employee Benefits

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Wilbur R. Gibson,

Plaintiff,

v.

Aetna Life Insurance Company, et al.,

Defendants.

CIV-07-2157-PHX-SMM

ORDER

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of Time to Serve Complaint (Dkt.

8). Plaintiff electronically filed this action on November 6, 2007, alleging that Defendants

violated provisions of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”) 

(Dkt. 1). Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m), Plaintiff had 120 days after the

filing of the Complaint to effect service of the summons and complaint, i.e., until March 5,

2008. By Order dated January 10, 2008, the Court notified Plaintiff that it “shall dismiss this

action without further notice to the Plaintiff with respect to any Defendant named in the

Complaint that is not served in accordance with Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure within that 120 day period” (Dkt. 5). 

On March 5, 2008—the deadline for service—Plaintiff filed this motion requesting

additional time to serve Defendants Renaissance Premier Senior Living, L.L.C. (“the Plan”)

and Renaissance Senior Living Management, Inc. (“Renaissance”). (Dkt. 8.) Plaintiff states

this extension is necessary because service on the Plan is effected through Renaissance, and 

Plaintiff has been unable to locate Renaissance due to changes in name and address. 

Case 2:07-cv-02157-SMM Document 9 Filed 03/11/08 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

A court is required to extend the time for service “if the plaintiff shows good cause for

the failure” to effectuate service within the 120-day time limit. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). 

Plaintiff states that Renaissance had dissolved and reconstituted as a new entity

(“Renaissance II”) but with the same management, statutory agent, and address. Plaintiff

asserts that he attempted service at that address and was informed that Renaissance II had not

been at that address for over one year. Plaintiff asserts that additional time is necessary to

locate Renaissance II or its agent, or to attempt alternative service. (Dkt. 4, Pl.’s Mot. 1:17-

26.)

Plaintiff’s motion fails to demonstrate that his inability to locate and serve

Renaissance resulted from anything other than delay. Specifically, Plaintiff fails to

demonstrate that he has diligently sought to locate Renaissance or Renaissance II since the

filing of the Complaint. Had Plaintiff not waited until the last minute, Renaissance’s change

of business name and address would not have prevented Plaintiff from effecting service

within the 120 days provided under Rule 4(m). As a result, the Court finds that good cause

has not been shown for Plaintiff’s failure to serve Renaissance in this matter and Plaintiff’s

motion is denied.

Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED denying Plaintiffs’ Motion for Extension of Time to

Serve Complaint (Dkt. 8). This action is dismissed without prejudice as against Defendants

Defendants Renaissance Premier Senior Living, L.L.C. and Renaissance Senior Living

Management, Inc.

DATED this 11th day of March, 2008.

Case 2:07-cv-02157-SMM Document 9 Filed 03/11/08 Page 2 of 2