Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-00239/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-00239-0/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-239-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

LORENA CANO

Plaintiff,

v.

MEGAN J. BRENNAN, Postmaster 

General, United States Postal Service 

(Pacific Area),

Defendant.

Case No.: 19-CV-239-CAB-BGS

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO 

DISMISS

[Doc. Nos. 9, 11]

This matter is before the Court on Defendant’s motion to dismiss under Federal Rule 

of Civil Procedure 12(b)(5) for insufficient service of process. The motion has been fully 

briefed, and the Court deems it suitable for submission without oral argument. As 

discussed below, although the complaint and summons were not served within the time 

required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m), Plaintiff is entitled to relief from Rule 

4(m)’s time requirements. Accordingly, Defendant’s motion is denied.

I. Background

On February 1, 2019, Plaintiff Lorena Cano, an employee of the United States Postal 

Service (“USPS”), filed the complaint in this lawsuit against the Defendant, the Postmaster 

General of the United States Postal Service, alleging that Cano suffered sexual harassment 

Case 3:19-cv-00239-CAB-BGS Document 14 Filed 08/07/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 5
2

19-CV-239-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

by her supervisor at the post office where she worked. [Doc. No. 1.] As of May 6, 2019, 

there was no indication on the docket that the complaint had been served on Defendant, so 

the Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause why the complaint should not be dismissed under 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m). [Doc. No. 5.] In Plaintiff’s response to the order to 

show cause, Plaintiff’s counsel blamed the failure to serve Defendant on the process server 

she hired, on her legal secretary’s maternity leave, and on miscommunications with her 

temporary office staff. [Doc. No. 7.] Plaintiff also stated that she “served Defendant both 

the complaint and the summons on May 14, 2019.” [Id. at 2.] The following day, Plaintiff 

filed a proof of service indicating that the summons had been served by leaving it with a 

legal administrative assistant on May 14, 2019. [Doc. No. 8.]

On July 3, 2019, Defendant filed the instant motion to dismiss. [Doc. No. 9.] 

According to the motion, Plaintiff failed to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

4(i) which governs service of summons and complaints in actions against federal 

employees in their individual capacity. Along with her opposition to the motion, Plaintiff 

filed a separate motion for an extension of time for service [Doc. No. 11], along with new 

proofs of service indicating that the summons and complaint were served by registered 

mail on Defendant, the Attorney General of the United States, and the United States 

Attorney for the Southern District of California on July 3, 2019. [Doc. No. 10.] 

II. Discussion

“A defendant who has notice of an action against him may force the plaintiff to prove 

that service has been made and that jurisdiction is proper by filing a Rule 12(b) motion to 

dismiss.” S.E.C. v. Internet Sols. for Bus. Inc., 509 F.3d 1161, 1166 (9th Cir. 2007). “A 

federal court is without personal jurisdiction over a defendant unless the defendant has 

been served in accordance with Fed.R.Civ.P. 4.” Crowley v. Bannister, 734 F.3d 967, 974–

75 (9th Cir. 2013) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). Although Rule 4 is “a 

flexible rule that should be liberally construed so long as a party receives sufficient notice 

of the complaint . . . actual notice . . . will [not] subject defendants to personal jurisdiction 

Case 3:19-cv-00239-CAB-BGS Document 14 Filed 08/07/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 5
3

19-CV-239-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

if service was not made in substantial compliance with Rule 4.” Id. (internal quotation 

marks, brackets, and citations omitted).

There is no dispute here that Plaintiff was required to serve the complaint and 

summons in accordance with Rule 4(i), which requires service of a complaint against a 

United States employee served in their official capacity to be served by sending a copy of 

the summons and complaint by registered or certified mail to: (1) the United States 

attorney’s office for the jurisdiction where the action is filed (Fed. R. Civ. P. 

4(i)(1)(A)(ii));1(2) the Attorney General of the United States (Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(i)(1)(B)); 

and (3) to the officer being sued in her official capacity (Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(i)(2)). There 

also is no dispute that Plaintiff failed to serve the summons and complaint in any of these 

three required ways within the time limits required by Rule 4(m). Accordingly, in light of 

Defendant’s motion, the Court “must dismiss the action without prejudice . . . or order that 

service be made within a specified time,” unless “plaintiff shows good cause for the failure 

[to serve],” in which case “the court must extend the time for service for an appropriate 

period.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). 

Even if there is not good cause for a plaintiff’s delay, the Court has discretion to 

provide relief on a showing of “excusable neglect” by a plaintiff. In other words:

Rule 4(m) provides two avenues for relief. The first is mandatory: the district 

court must extend time for service upon a showing of good cause. The second 

is discretionary: if good cause is not established, the district court may extend 

time for service upon a showing of excusable neglect. Exercise of discretion 

to extend time to complete service is appropriate when, for example, a statuteof-limitations bar would operate to prevent re-filing of the action.

Crowley, 734 F.3d at 976 (quoting Lemoge v. United States, 587 F.3d 1188, 1198 (9th Cir. 

2009)); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 4, Advisory Committee Note to 1993 Amendments, 

 

1 Rule 4(i)(1)(A)(i) also permits service on the United States attorney by delivering a copy of the summons 

and complaint to the United States attorney “or to an assistant United States attorney or clerical employee 

whom the United States attorney designates in a writing filed with the court clerk.”

Case 3:19-cv-00239-CAB-BGS Document 14 Filed 08/07/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 5
4

19-CV-239-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

Subdivision (m) (“Relief may be justified, for example, if the applicable statute of 

limitations would bar the re-filed action.”).

Here, Plaintiff does not demonstrate good cause for her failure to serve the summons 

and complaint in accordance with Rule 4(i) within the time required by Rule 4(m). The 

only reason offered for the delay is the inadvertence or negligence of Plaintiff’s counsel. 

That Plaintiff’s counsel was not aware of Rule 4(i) “does not qualify as good cause for 

[Plaintiff’s] failure to comply with” its requirements. Wei v. State of Hawaii, 763 F.2d 

370, 372 (9th Cir. 1985); see also Townsel v. Contra Costa County, Cal., 820 F.2d 319, 

320 (9th Cir. 1987) (holding that attorney’s ignorance of Rule 4(j), which is the predecessor 

to Rule 4(m), does not constitute good cause for untimely service); Whale v. United States, 

792 F.2d 951, 953 (9th Cir. 1986) (affirming dismissal for failure to timely serve the United 

States as required by Rule 4 because it was not abuse of discretion for district court to find 

that the plaintiff’s counsel’s failure to pay attention to the Rule 4 requirements was not a 

justifiable excuse). 

Nevertheless, the ineptitude of Plaintiff’s counsel could qualify as excusable neglect, 

which:

encompasses situations in which the failure to comply with a filing deadline 

is attributable to negligence, and includes omissions caused by carelessness. 

The determination of whether neglect is excusable is at bottom an equitable 

one, taking account of all relevant circumstances surrounding the party’s 

omission. To determine when neglect is excusable, we conduct the equitable 

analysis specified in [Pioneer Inv. Servs. Co. v. Brunswick Assocs. Ltd., 507 

U.S. 380 (1993)], by examining at least four factors: (1) the danger of 

prejudice to the opposing party; (2) the length of the delay and its potential 

impact on the proceedings; (3) the reason for the delay; and (4) whether the 

movant acted in good faith. 

Lemoge, 587 F.3d at 1192 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). 

Here, although counsel’s negligence is rather extreme in light of the failure to 

properly serve Defendant even after the order to show cause from the Court, the equities 

support giving her relief. There is no argument of any prejudice to Defendant by allowing 

Case 3:19-cv-00239-CAB-BGS Document 14 Filed 08/07/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 5
5

19-CV-239-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

this case to proceed, Plaintiff has already remedied her prior defective attempt at service, 

and there is no indication of bad faith by Plaintiff. Moreover, because Plaintiff would be 

time-barred from re-filing her lawsuit, she would be prejudiced if the Court dismisses the 

complaint. See id. at 1198 (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.

III. Conclusion

In light of the foregoing, Plaintiff is entitled to relief under 4(m) for her failure to 

serve Defendant within 90 days. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time 

[Doc. No. 11] is GRANTED, and Defendant’s motion to dismiss is DENIED. Because it 

appears from the docket that Defendant now has been served with the summons and 

complaint in accordance with Rule 4(i), Defendant shall respond to the complaint within 

the time required by the applicable rules.

It is SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 7, 2019

Case 3:19-cv-00239-CAB-BGS Document 14 Filed 08/07/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 5