Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-00756/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-00756-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Baja Developments LLC
Plaintiff
TSD Loreto Partners, S en C. Por A. de C.V.
Defendant

Document Text:

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

Baja Developments LLC, a New York

limited liability company, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

TSD Loreto Partners, S EN C. POR A. DE

C.V., a Mexican entity,

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-09-756-PHX-LOA

ORDER

This matter arises on Plaintiff’s Objection to Dismissal for Lack of Service,

docket # 9, and the Court’s review of the record. 

Plaintiff commenced this action on April 13, 2009, docket # 1, and

subsequently consented to magistrate-judge jurisdiction. (docket # 7) Noting that the 120-

day deadline for accomplishing service had passed, see Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(m), and consistent

with the undersigned’s responsibilities mandated by Congress in the Civil Justice Reform Act

of 1990, 28 U.S.C. §471 et seq., on August 19, 2009, the Court ordered Plaintiff to show

cause why this case should not be dismissed for failure to serve the Summons and Complaint.

(docket # 8)

Plaintiff timely responded by filing its Objection to Dismissal for Lack of

Service, arguing that Rule 4(m) does not apply to service of process on Defendant in this

case. (docket # 9) Plaintiff’s objection is well taken. Defendant is a Mexican entity. Plaintiff

correctly states that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m)’s 120-day time limit for service

Case 2:09-cv-00756-LOA Document 10 Filed 08/28/09 Page 1 of 3
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

 Subdivision (f) of Rule 4 specifies the method of service of individuals in foreign

countries, while subdivision (j)(1) specifies the manner of service upon foreign states or

political subdivisions, agencies, or instrumentalities. Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(f), (j)(1). Subdivision

(h)(2) provides that, when serving a foreign corporation, partnership, or association “at a

place not within any judicial district of the United States,” a litigant shall follow Rule 4(f).

Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(h).

- 2 -

does not apply to foreign individuals or corporations. See, e.g., Flock v. Scripto-Tokai Corp.,

2001 WL 3111630, at * 4-6 (S.D. Tex. June 25, 2001) (“[C]ourts have consistently

recognized that the 120-day time limit does not apply to service in foreign countries of

individual or corporate defendants.”) (citing cases); Lucas v. Natoli, 936 F.2d 432, 433 (9th

Cir. 1991). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) states that “this subdivision (m) does not

apply to service in a foreign country under Rule 4(f) or 4(j)(1).” Plaintiff’s counsel

represents they in the process of serving Defendant in Mexico pursuant to 4(f).1

 (docket #

9) 

Although Rule 4(m)’s time limit does not apply to service in a foreign country,

Plaintiff has not cited, nor has the Court found, any authority stating that a district court is

precluded from setting a reasonable time limit for service in a foreign country to properly

manage a civil case. Montalbano v. Easco Hand Tools, Inc., 766 F.2d 737, 740 (2d Cir.

1985) (holding that exemption from 120-day time limit for service of process in foreign

countries provided by Rule 4(m)’s predecessor (Rule 4(j)) did not apply where the plaintiff

had not even attempted to serve the foreign defendants); Mitchell v. Theriault, 516 F.Supp.2d

450, 458 (M.D.Pa. 2007) (concluding that, “[a]lthough the time limit of Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 4(m) is expressly made not to apply to service in a foreign country pursuant to

subdivisions (f) of (j)(1), the Court will impose a limit of one hundred and twenty (120) days

from the date of this order for Plaintiffs to effect proper service on Defendant. . . .”).

In Umbenhauer v. Woog, 969 F.2d 25 (3d Cir. 1992), the Third Circuit noted

that “Rule 4[m] expressly states that it ‘shall not apply to service in a foreign country’ . . .

Rule 4[m]’s drafters apparently incorporated this exemption into Rule 4[m] because . . . ‘the

vagaries of such service [on foreign defendants] render the Rule 4[m] time limit too

Case 2:09-cv-00756-LOA Document 10 Filed 08/28/09 Page 2 of 3
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 -

burdensome on a plaintiff.’” Id. at 31 (quoting Green v. Humphrey Elevator and Truck Co.,

816 F.2d 877 (3d Cir. 1987)). The Third Circuit held that dismissal of a complaint for

improper service of process was an abuse of the district court’s discretion when service was

“eminently feasible.” Id.

This case has been on file since April 13, 2009. Plaintiff has offered to provide

specifics of its service attempts. (docket # 9) Although the Court will not, at this juncture,

require Plaintiff to file a report detailing its service attempts, the Court will impose a

reasonable time limit for accomplishing service of process on Defendant. Specifically, the

Court will direct Plaintiff to accomplish service on or before November 27, 2009. If Plaintiff

is unable to accomplish service by the November 27, 2009 deadline, it shall file a Status

Report, detailing its efforts to serve Defendant and showing whether service is “eminently

feasible.” At that time, the Court may revisit whether dismissal is appropriate for failure to

serve.

Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff has discharged its duty to respond

to the August 19, 2009 Order to Show Cause. (docket # 8)

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff shall either serve Defendant on

or before November 27, 2009, or shall file a Status Report, detailing its due-diligent efforts

to serve Defendant and showing whether service is “eminently feasible.” 

Dated this 27th of August, 2009.

Case 2:09-cv-00756-LOA Document 10 Filed 08/28/09 Page 3 of 3