Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-05132/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-05132-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 480
Nature of Suit: Consumer Credit
Cause of Action: 15:1681 Fair Credit Reporting 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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

JASON PECHA,

Plaintiff,

v.

EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS, 

INC., et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 15-cv-05132-BLF 

ORDER (1) SUBMITTING DEFENDANT 

TD BANK USA, N.A.’S MOTION TO 

DISMISS FOR INSUFFICIENT 

SERVICE OF PROCESS WITHOUT 

ORAL ARGUMENT AND VACATING 

HEARING; (2) GRANTING MOTION

TO DISMISS; AND (3) TERMINATING 

AS MOOT DEFENDANT TD BANK 

USA, N.A.’S MOTION FOR 

PROTECTIVE ORDER

[Re: ECF 51, 54]

On May 23, 2016, Defendant TD Bank USA, N.A. filed a Motion to Dismiss for 

Insufficient Service of Process pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(5). See Motion 

to Dismiss, ECF 51. The motion is supported by declarations and correspondence establishing 

that Plaintiff failed to respond to an offer extended by TD Bank USA N.A.’s counsel to return a 

waiver of service under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(d), and failed to effect service of 

process on TD Bank USA, N.A. within the time provided under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

4(m). 

Plaintiff’s response to the motion to dismiss was due on June 6, 2016. See Civ. L.R. 7-3(a) 

(opposition due within fourteen days). Plaintiff did not file a response. On June 10, 2016, TD 

Bank USA, N.A. filed a Notice of No Response to Motion for Dismissal for Insufficient Service of 

Process. See Notice of No Response, ECF 53. Plaintiff did not file a response to the Notice of No 

Response. The Court hereby SUBMITS the Motion to Dismiss for disposition without oral 

argument and VACATES the hearing date noticed for September 29, 2016. See Civ. L.R. 7-1(b).

Case 5:15-cv-05132-BLF Document 55 Filed 06/23/16 Page 1 of 2
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

At the time Plaintiff’s complaint was filed on November 9, 2015, Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 4(m) provided that “[i]f a defendant is not served within 120 days after the complaint is 

filed, the court – on motion or on its own after notice to the plaintiff – must dismiss the action 

without prejudice against that defendant or order that service be made within a specified time.” 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m); see also Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe, No. C 15-04443 WHA, 2016 WL 

3383759, at *1 (N.D. Cal. June 20, 2016) (discussing prior version of Rule 4(m)).

1

 TD Bank 

USA, N.A. has shown by its motion that Plaintiff did not serve it within 120 days after filing the 

complaint and still has not served it with the summons and complaint. Plaintiff has not rebutted 

that showing or responded in any way to TD Bank USA, N.A.’s Motion to Dismiss or Notice of 

No Response. Under these circumstances, the Court concludes that dismissal, rather than an 

extension of time to effect service, is appropriate. The Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED and the 

action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE as to TD Bank USA, N.A. 

In light of TD Bank USA, N.A.’s dismissal from the action, TD Bank USA, N.A.’s Motion 

for Protective Order filed June 10, 2016, ECF 54, is TERMINATED AS MOOT.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 23, 2016

______________________________________

BETH LABSON FREEMAN

United States District Judge

 

1 Rule 4(m) was amended, effective December 1, 2015, to shorten the time for service from 120 

days to 90 days. This Court applies the 120-day rule that was in effect when Plaintiff filed his 

complaint. See Malibu Media, 2016 WL 3383759, at *1 n.*. 

Case 5:15-cv-05132-BLF Document 55 Filed 06/23/16 Page 2 of 2