Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-01759/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-01759-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:2000ad Job Discrimination (Disability Act)

---

1

19-CV-1759-CAB-BGS

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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

AMY TERRELL,

Plaintiff,

v.

THOMAS B. MODLY, Acting Secretary, 

Department of the Navy,

Defendant.

Case No.: 19-CV-1759-CAB-BGS

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO 

DISMISS

[Doc. No. 4]

Defendant has filed a motion to dismiss the complaint in this action under Federal 

Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(5) for insufficient service of process because Plaintiff did 

not serve the complaint in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(i) within the 

90 days required by Rule 4(m). In her opposition, Plaintiff concedes that she had not 

adequately served the Attorney General of the United States, as required by Rule 4(i)(1)(B), 

at the time of Defendant’s motion, but states that she remedied that defect in service. Thus, 

Plaintiff asks for relief under Rule 4(m) for the delay in service. In its reply, Defendant

points out that the proof service that Plaintiff filed on January 6, 2020 [Doc. No. 5] relates 

to a different case and does not demonstrate proper service of the summons and complaint 

in this case on the Attorney General. Notably, however, Defendant does not dispute that 

Case 3:19-cv-01759-CAB-BGS Document 8 Filed 01/21/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 2
2

19-CV-1759-CAB-BGS

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

Plaintiff has in fact effected service on the Attorney General since the filing of the motion 

to dismiss as represented by Plaintiff’s counsel in the opposition brief.

Ultimately, it appears that Defendant has been served in accordance with Rule 4(i), 

albeit not with the 90 days required by Rule 4(m). However, there is no argument of any 

prejudice to Defendant by allowing this case to proceed, and there is no indication of bad 

faith by Plaintiff. Moreover, because Plaintiff could be time-barred from re-filing her 

lawsuit, she would be prejudiced if the Court dismisses the complaint. See generally 

Lemoge v. United States, 587 F.3d 1188, 1198 (9th Cir. 2009) (reversing and ordering the 

district court to extend time for the plaintiffs to complete service under Rule 4(m) because 

the plaintiffs would be time-barred from re-filing their action). Accordingly, relief under 

4(m) is appropriate.

In light of the foregoing, it is hereby ORDERED that Defendant’s motion to dismiss 

is DENIED. Defendant shall respond to the complaint on or before February 11, 2020.

It is SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 21, 2020

Case 3:19-cv-01759-CAB-BGS Document 8 Filed 01/21/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2