Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_07-cv-08087/USCOURTS-azd-3_07-cv-08087-0/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

George H. Rudebusch and Rebecca

Garrison,

Plaintiffs,

v.

State of Arizona, et al.,

Defendants.

CIV-07-8087-PCT-SMM

ORDER

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

9). Plaintiffs electronically filed this action on August 29, 2007, alleging discrimination on

the part of Defendants (Dkt. 1). Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m), Plaintiffs

had 120 days after the filing of the Complaint to effect service of the summons and

complaint, or until December 27, 2007. By Order dated September 20, 2007, the Court

notified Plaintiffs 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. 8). 

On December 27, 2007—the deadline for service—Plaintiffs filed this motion

requesting additional time to serve Defendant Northern Arizona University (“NAU”). 

Plaintiffs state attempts to serve NAU were unsuccessful because the Administrative Office

of NAU was closed for the holidays until January 2, 2007, and Plaintiffs were unable to

locate anyone else authorized to accept service.

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

Case 3:07-cv-08087-SMM Document 13 Filed 01/11/08 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

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

Plaintiffs waited until the last minute to serve NAU, knowing full well that educational

institutions recess over the holidays. As a result, the Court finds that good cause has not

been shown for Plaintiffs’ failure to serve Defendants 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. 9). This action is dismissed without prejudice as against Defendant

Northern Arizona University.

DATED this 11th day of January, 2008.

Case 3:07-cv-08087-SMM Document 13 Filed 01/11/08 Page 2 of 2