Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-01405/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-01405-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
John Snyder
Plaintiff
Patricia Snyder
Plaintiff
United States of America
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

Patricia Snyder, an individual, on behalf of 

herself and John Snyder, deceased, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

United States of America, 

Defendant. 

No. CV12-1405 PHX DGC 

ORDER 

 

 Plaintiff Patricia Snyder filed a complaint against the United States of America on 

June 29, 2012. Doc. 1. Rule 4(i) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires a party 

seeking to serve the United States to serve a copy of the summons and complaint on the 

United States Attorney for the district in which the action is brought and on the Attorney 

General of the United States. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(i). Additionally, Rule 4(m) provides a 

120-day time limit for service. 

 Plaintiff served the United States Attorney for the District of Arizona on 

October 29, 2012 (Doc. 8), but failed to serve the Attorney General of the United States 

at Washington, D.C. within 120-days of initiating this action. The Court issued an order 

on December 14, 2012, noting that Plaintiff had failed to properly serve Defendant within 

the time required by Rule 4(m), and directing the Clerk of the Court to terminate the 

matter on December 28, 2012, without further leave, if Plaintiff failed to show good 

Case 2:12-cv-01405-DGC Document 17 Filed 02/13/13 Page 1 of 3
- 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 

cause for her failure to serve beforehand. Doc. 9. 

 Plaintiff served the Attorney General of the United States at Washington, D.C. on 

December 18, 2012. Doc. 11-1. Plaintiff did not respond, however, to the Court’s 

December 14, 2012, Order (Doc. 9), requiring Plaintiff to show good cause for her failure 

to serve Defendant in accordance with Rule 4(m). 

 Defendant has filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to serve as 

required by Rule 4(m). Doc. 12. The motion is fully briefed. No party has requested 

oral argument. For the reasons set forth below, the Court will deny the motion. 

I. Discussion. 

 Rule 4(m) provides that “the court shall extend the time for service” upon a 

showing of “good cause.” Plaintiff asserts that good cause exists because as the time for 

service approached, she had to seek new counsel, and, due to this confusion, service was 

not accomplished until December 18, 2012. Doc. 13 at 2. Plaintiff’s counsel filed a 

motion to withdraw on July 8, 2012 (Doc. 6), which the Court denied on July 10, 2012 

(Doc. 7) for failure to comply with Local Rule of Civil Procedure 83.3(b). Since July 

2012, there has been no motion to withdraw or notice of substitution of Plaintiff’s 

counsel. “Good cause generally does not exist . . . when a plaintiff merely encounters 

difficulties in completing service, such as ‘failure to receive a waiver of formal service, 

ignorance of the rule, the absence of prejudice to the defendant, office moves or personal 

problems, the belief that the time requirement was only technical, the filing of an 

amended complaint, inadvertence of counsel, or the expenditure of efforts that fall short 

of real diligence by the serving party.’” Dema v. Snell & Wilmer, L.L.P., No. CV-07-473-

PHX-DGC, 2007 WL 2287841, at *1 (D. Ariz. Aug. 8, 2007) (quoting 4B Charles Alan 

Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure: Civil 3d § 1137 (2002)). 

The Court finds that Plaintiff’s lack of service falls into this category. Plaintiff has failed 

to explain how her counsel’s failed attempt to withdraw precluded her from timely 

serving Defendant. 

 The Ninth Circuit has held, however, that district courts have broad discretion 

Case 2:12-cv-01405-DGC Document 17 Filed 02/13/13 Page 2 of 3
- 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 

under Rule 4(m) to extend time for service even without a showing of good cause. See 

United States v. 2,164 Watches, 366 F.3d 767, 772 (9th Cir. 2004). This holding is 

consistent with the Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 4(m), which “authorizes the court 

to relieve a plaintiff of the consequences of an application of [Rule 4(m)] even if there is 

no good cause shown.” (1993 Amendments). Given that both Parties agree Defendant 

was given actual notice of the lawsuit within 120-days (Doc. 13 at 2; Doc. 15 at 3), that 

Defendant has suffered no prejudice as a result of Plaintiff’s failure to timely serve the 

Attorney General in Washington, D.C. (Doc. 13 at 2; Doc. 15 at 3 n. 1), and that Plaintiff 

would suffer prejudice if the action were now dismissed (Doc. 13 at 2; Doc. 15 at 3), the 

Court will exercise its discretion and excuse Plaintiff’s untimely service. See Efaw v. 

Williams, 473 F.3d 1038, 1041 (9th Cir. 2007) (noting that “[d]istrict courts have broad 

discretion to extend time for service under Rule 4(m)” and that “[i]n making extension 

decisions under Rule 4(m) a district court may consider factors like a statute of 

limitations bar, prejudice to the defendant, actual notice of a lawsuit, and eventual 

service.” (internal quotation marks and citations omitted)). 

 Plaintiff failed to comply with this Court’s order (Doc. 9) directing her to show 

good cause for failing to comply with Rule 4(m). Although Plaintiff has now served 

Defendant in compliance with Rule 4(i), this compliance does not remedy her direct 

violation of a Court order. The Court advises Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s Counsel to 

familiarize themselves with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules of 

Civil Procedure. Further disregard of the Court’s order will result in sanctions. 

 The Court will not allow this matter to languish. Defendant’s answer is due 60 

days from the date of this order. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(a)(2). The Court will schedule a 

Rule 16 Case Management Conference by another order. 

IT IS ORDERED that Defendant’s motion for dismissal (Doc. 12) is denied. 

 Dated this 13th day of February, 2013. 

Case 2:12-cv-01405-DGC Document 17 Filed 02/13/13 Page 3 of 3