Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00322/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00322-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jack Allen
Defendant
HDR Engineering, Inc.
Defendant
Camille Remy
Plaintiff

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CAMILLE REMY,

NO. CIV. S-05-322 LKK/PAN

Plaintiff,

v.

O R D E R

HDR ENGINEERING, INC.; and

JACK ALLEN,

Defendants.

 /

On January 12, 2005, Plaintiff Camille Remy (“Remy”) filed an

action in the Sacramento County Superior Court against defendants

HDR Engineering, Inc. ("HDR") and Jack Allen (“Allen”). HDR

removed the case on February 17, 2005 to the United States District

Court, Eastern District of California, on the basis of diversity

jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Defendant Allen now brings this

motion pursuant to Rule 12(b)(5) of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure, alleging that he should be dismissed from this action

due to insufficiency of service of process. In the alternative,

Case 2:05-cv-00322-LKK -PAN Document 23 Filed 08/10/05 Page 1 of 6
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

1 Remy and Allen dispute whether service was effected on April 26th or 28th. Although the Court is unable

to verify the exact date from the record, the difference is irrelevant for purposes of this motion. 

2

he asks that service on him be quashed. I decide the motion based

on the papers and pleadings filed herein and after oral argument.

I. 

BACKGROUND

At the time this action was removed to this court, defendant

Allen had not yet been served See J. Allen Decl. at 7. 

Following a Status Conference, this court issued an order on April

13, 2005 directing Remy "to serve defendant Allen within fifteen

(15) days . . . ." See April 13, 2005 Status (Pre-Trial

Scheduling) Order at 2:3-5. Remy served Allen on April 26, 2005,

within the 15 days prescribed by the court order.1 Declaration of

Jack Allen (“Allen Decl.”) at 4-7. According to Allen, he received

the complaint and a state court summons from Remy's process server.

Id. Ex. A.

II. 

STANDARDS FOR DISMISSAL PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 4(m)

Where service of the summons and complaint is not made upon

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

court . . . shall dismiss the action without prejudice as to

that defendant or direct that service shall be effected within a

specified time." Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). If the plaintiff

demonstrates "good cause for the failure, the court shall extend

the time for service for an appropriate period.” See Id. 

Additionally, the court may also enlarge the time for service

Case 2:05-cv-00322-LKK -PAN Document 23 Filed 08/10/05 Page 2 of 6
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

3

"even if there is no good cause shown." Henderson v. United

States, 517 U.S. 654, 658 n. 5 (1996)(quoting Advisory

Committee's Notes on 1993 Amendments to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4, 28

U.S.C.App., p. 654).

The determination of whether or not good cause is shown is

within the trial court's discretion. De Tie v. Orange County,

152 F.3d 1109, 1111-1112 (9th Cir. 1998). Although neither Rule

4(m) nor its legislative history define "good cause," the Ninth

Circuit has repeatedly held that the rule contemplates more than

a showing that the time limit was not complied with due to the

inadvertence of counsel. See Wei v. State of Hawaii, 763 F.2d

370, 372 (9th Cir. 1985) (inadvertent failure to calendar the

120-day time limit insufficient); Townsel v. Contra Costa

County, 820 F.2d 319, 320 (9th Cir. 1987)(counsel's complete

ignorance of rule did not constitute good cause); Fimbres v.

United States, 833 F.2d 138, 139 (9th Cir. 1987)(counsel's

deliberate delay in service because plaintiff lacked financial

resources to prosecute action did not constitute good cause).

III.

ANALYSIS

Allen brings this motion based on two grounds. First, he

asserts that the April 2005 service was defective under federal

law, and accordingly asks that the Court either quash service or

dismiss him from this action. Second, he argues that dismissal

is warranted because Remy has failed to effectively serve Allen

within the 120 day time limit prescribed by Rule 4(m) of the

Case 2:05-cv-00322-LKK -PAN Document 23 Filed 08/10/05 Page 3 of 6
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

4

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. I examine these contentions

below. 

A. SUFFICIENCY OF THE APRIL 2005 SUMMONS

Allen alleges that, although he was served on April 26,

2005, service was defective because he was not served with a

federal court summons. 

The purpose of process is to ensure that the addressee has

notice of the proceeding against him. Beecher v. Wallace, 381

F.2d 372, 373 (9th Cir. 1967). Thus, “service of process . . .

is an indispensable prerequisite to the court’s jurisdiction to

proceed.” Id. Where a defendant has not been served at all with

state process prior to removal, a state court summons issued but

not served prior to removal does not retain any efficacy for

further service of process after the removal. Id. Instead,

because the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure govern after the

matter has been removed to federal court, see Fed. R. Civ. P.

81(c); see also Savarese v. Edrick Transfer & Storage, Inc., 513

F.2d 140, 144 (9th Cir. 1975), the plaintiff is responsible for

securing a new summons from the court pursuant to Rule 4. Fed.

R. Civ. P. 4(c); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1448. The summons must be

served on all defendants along with the complaint. Fed. R. Civ.

P. 4(c)(1).

Here, Remy concedes that the documents served on Allen in

April of 2005 included only a state court summons and not a

federal court summons. Thus, the April 2005 service of process

////

Case 2:05-cv-00322-LKK -PAN Document 23 Filed 08/10/05 Page 4 of 6
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

2 As noted, the court’s Order dated April 13, 2005 directed Remy to serve Allen within fifteen days. However,

as this court has previously explained, such an order cannot preempt the 120-day time period of the Federal

Rules. United States v. Bodwell, 1996 WL 757285, *4 (E.D. Cal. 1996). When an order conflicts with the 4(m)

time period, failure to comply with the order does not require dismissal, and dismissal is warranted only upon

a showing of prejudice against the defendant. Id. (citing United Food & Commercial Workers Union v. Alpha Beta

Co., 736 F.2d 1371, 1382 (9th Cir. 1984); see also Fed R. Civ. P. 83 (local rules may be adopted by the

district court if they are not inconsistent with the federal rules); Mut. Fund Investors, Inc. v. The Putnam

Mgmt. Co., 553 F.2d 620, 625 (9th Cir. 1977). Here, Allen has not shown that Remy’s failure to comply with

the April 13, 2005 order prejudiced him in any way. Absent such showing of prejudice, dismissal of Allen in

this action is not warranted based upon to Remy’s noncompliance with the court order. 

5

failed to comply with the service requirements as set forth in

Rule 4(c). 

B. 120-DAY SERVICE OF PROCESS RULE

Allen contends that, in addition to quashing the April 2005

service, his dismissal from this action is also warranted

because Remy has failed to effectively serve him within the time

prescribed by the Federal Rules. Rule 4(c) provides that the

plaintiff is responsible for service of a summons and complaint

within the time allowed under subdivision 4(m), which provides a

120-day period. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c). That subdivision also

allows the defendant to bring a motion for dismissal if service

of the summons and complaint is not made upon him within that

time after the filing of the complaint. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). 

Allen contends that because Remy filed her complaint on January

12, 2005, the last day for service was May 12, 2005. As I

explain below, Allen’s contention is not well-taken.

The 120-day time period set out in Rule 4(m) starts to run

upon removal to the federal district court, not the date the

action originated in state court.2 Vasquez v. N. County Transit

Dist., 292 F.3d 1049, 1053 (9th Cir. 2002); 4 C. Wright & A.

Case 2:05-cv-00322-LKK -PAN Document 23 Filed 08/10/05 Page 5 of 6
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

6

Miller, Federal Practice & Procedure: Civil § 1137, at 341 (3d

ed. 2002). This action was removed to federal court on February

17, 2005; hence, Remy had until June 17, 2005 to properly serve

any additional defendants in accordance with Rule 4(m). Counsel

for plaintiff has indicated that Allen was re-served with a

federal court summons on May 17, 2005. On June 13, 2005, Remy

filed a proof of service. Service of process has therefore

properly been completed.

IV. 

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, defendant’s motion to dismiss is

DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: August 8, 2005.

/s/Lawrence K. Karlton 

LAWRENCE K. KARLTON

SENIOR JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case 2:05-cv-00322-LKK -PAN Document 23 Filed 08/10/05 Page 6 of 6