Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-00348/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-00348-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 445
Nature of Suit: Americans with Disabilities Act - Employment
Cause of Action: 42:2000 Job Discrimination (Age)

---

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

Eddie W. Bell, Jr.,

Plaintiff, 

vs.

The Hillman Group,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 06-0348-PHX-SMM

ORDER

Pending before the Court is Defendant The Hillman Group's ("Hillman") Motion to

Dismiss for Insufficiency of Process submitted pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(h) and 4(m). (Dkt.

6.) Defendant alleges that Plaintiff Eddie Bell Jr. failed to properly serve the Summons and

Complaint within 120 days after filing his complaint. After considering the arguments in

Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 6) and Plaintiff's Response (Dkt. 7), the Court issues

the following Order.

BACKGROUND

On or about January 30, 2006, Plaintiff filed a Complaint against Hillman alleging

"Notice Right to Suit Title Virtue Americans with Disabilities Act and/or the Age

Discrimination in Employment Act, Equal Pay Act." (Dkt. 1.) Plaintiff filed his

Complaint on January 30, 2006 and attempted to serve The Hillman Group on or about

March 3, 2006 by registered mail sent to Defendant's attorney. (Dkt. 7.) Plaintiff includes

in his Response a letter from Defendant's attorney instructing him that she received the

documents, but that this service was improper. (Dkt. 7.) Plaintiff also received several

Case 2:06-cv-00348-SMM Document 10 Filed 09/13/06 Page 1 of 4
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

1

 Defendant timely removed this lawsuit on June 13, 2006, and it was also assigned to this

Court. See Bell v. The Hillman Group, CIV-06-1526-SMM.

- 2 -

notices from the Court instructing him to properly serve Defendant and providing him

with a form of Summons on February 2, 2006 in order to serve Defendant. (Dkt. 3, 4.) 

However, even after receiving these notices, Plaintiff failed to properly serve Defendant

within 120 days. Instead, Plaintiff filed a new action in Maricopa County Superior Court

against The Hillman Group on May 30, 2006 asserting the same cause of action. (Dkt. 9.)1

Furthermore, in that second action, Plaintiff was able to properly serve Defendant one day

later, on May 31, 2006. (Dkt. 9.) 

Plaintiff acknowledges his mistake and assigns his error to heavy medication for

mental illness that has serious side effects. (Dkt. 7.) Plaintiff is still employed by Hillman

in Tempe, Arizona. (Dkt. 6.) Plaintiff filed his Complaint on January 30, 2006 and, to

date, he has failed to effectuate service against Hillman. (Dkt. 6, 9.) 

STANDARD OF REVIEW

Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides:

If service of the summons and complaint is not made upon a

defendant within 120 days after the filing of the complaint, the

court, upon motion . . . shall dismiss the action without prejudice

as to that defendant or direct that service be effected within a

specified time; provided that if the plaintiff shows good cause

for the failure, the court shall extend the time for service for an

appropriate period.

Fed.R.Civ.P 4(m). Additionally, Rule 4(h) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

specifically addresses the proper manner by which a corporation must be served with a

Summons and Complaint, specifically, "by delivering a copy of the summons and of the

complaint to an officer, a managing or general agent, or to any other agent authorized by

appointment or by law to receive service of process." Fed.R.Civ.P 4(h)(1). Pro se

Case 2:06-cv-00348-SMM Document 10 Filed 09/13/06 Page 2 of 4
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 -

litigants are not exempt from complying with the basic rules for service of process. See

American Ass'n of Naturopathic Physicians v. Hayhurst, 227 F.3d 1104, 1108 (9th Cir.

2000). Additionally, ignorance of the law is not an excuse for failure to comply with

service of process rules. Dunmars v. City of Chicago, 22 F.Supp.2d 777, 783 (N.D. Ill.

1998).

Furthermore, a district court in the Second Circuit has held that "illness and other

personal problems" do not constitute good cause. Szarejko v. Great Neck School Dist.,

795 F.Supp 81, 84 (E.D.N.Y. 1992). A district court in the Ninth Circuit has also held

that a case may be dismissed and an extension denied when service was effected on the

wrong agent, especially when the Plaintiff had correctly served the same Defendant in a

previous suit. McWherter v. CBI Services, Inc., 153 FRD 161 (D. Hawaii, 1994). 

DISCUSSION

Although the Court generally maintains a liberal policy with regard to pro se

litigants, pro se litigants are not entitled to ignore the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

and their requirements. See American Ass'n of Naturopathic Physicians, 227 F.3d at

1108. In this case, Plaintiff was given ample time and notice to correct his service error

by both Defendant and the Court. (Dkt. 9.) Furthermore, the Court gave Plaintiff specific

instructions and forms in order to facilitate proper service of process on the Defendant.

(Dkt. 4, 9.) Based on the Plaintiff's current employment with the Defendant and his

subsequent proper service of Defendant in the second lawsuit filed by Plaintiff, the Court

concludes that Plaintiff had the ability to ascertain the appointed agent for service of

Case 2:06-cv-00348-SMM Document 10 Filed 09/13/06 Page 3 of 4
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 - 4 -

process and to effect that service properly. (Dkt. 9.) Moreover, although the Court may

grant an extension of time for service of process based on "good cause," Plaintiff does not

contend that good cause exists, and the Court finds that Plaintiff's illness and purported

ignorance of the law do not constitute good cause under the established case law. See

Szarejko, 795 F.Supp at 84; Dunmars, 22 F.Supp.2d at 783. 

Accordingly, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED GRANTING Defendant The Hillman Group's

Motion to Dismiss for Insufficiency of Process. (Dkt. 6.)

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED DENYING AS MOOT Plaintiff Eddie Bell Jr.'s

Motion to Appoint Counsel. (Dkt. 7.)

DATED this 12th day of September, 2006.

Case 2:06-cv-00348-SMM Document 10 Filed 09/13/06 Page 4 of 4