Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01448/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01448-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
John Hurd
Defendant
Allen Milovich
Plaintiff
Pacific Power and Light Company
Defendant
Pacificorp
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

PacifiCorp does business as “Pacific Power & Light Company” 1

however Pacific Power and Light Company is not a legal entity nor

was it Plaintiff’s employer.

Because oral argument will not be of material assistance, 2

the Court orders this matter submitted on the briefs. E.D. Cal.

(continued...)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ALLEN MILOVICH,

2:05-CV-1448-MCE-DAD

Plaintiff,

v. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

PACIFICORP, a Corporation,

PACIFIC POWER & LIGHT COMPANY,

a Corporation, JOHN HURD,

individually and as an

employee of PACIFICORP, and

DOES 1 through 30.

Defendants.

Through the present motion PacifiCorp moves to dismiss its 1

employee John Hurd (“Hurd”) from this action due to Plaintiff

Allen Milovich’s (“Milovich”) failure to effect timely service of

process. For the reasons set forth below, PacifiCorp’s motion is

granted.2

Case 2:05-cv-01448-MCE -DAD Document 18 Filed 03/28/06 Page 1 of 5
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

(...continued) 2

Local Rule 78-230(h). 

2

BACKGROUND

This action arose during Plaintiff’s employment with

PacifiCorp. Plaintiff worked as an estimator for PacifiCorp. 

During the course of his employment, Plaintiff alleges, inter

alia, he suffered discriminatory treatment as the result of his

mental disability in violation of California’s Fair Employment

and Housing Act (“FEHA”). In addition, Plaintiff contends he was

terminated in violation of the collective bargaining agreement

between his union and PacifiCorp.

On June 9, 2005, Plaintiff filed a claim in the Siskiyou

superior court. PacifiCorp removed the action to this Court on

July 18, 2005. Plaintiff timely served process on all Defendants

to this action except Hurd. PacifiCorp is now moving this Court

to dismiss Hurd for lack of timely service. 

STANDARD

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m), service of

the summons and complaint must be made upon a defendant within

120 days after the filing of the complaint. In the event a

plaintiff fails to timely serve process, the court shall dismiss

the action without prejudice as to that defendant or direct that

service be effected within a specified time. Fed. R. Civ. P.

4(m).

Case 2:05-cv-01448-MCE -DAD Document 18 Filed 03/28/06 Page 2 of 5
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

If the plaintiff, however, shows good cause for the failure, the

court shall extend the time for an appropriate period. Id.

Rule 4(m) contains both a mandatory and a discretionary

component. If a plaintiff shows good cause for the defective

service, the district court must extend the time period for

service. In re Sheehan, 253 F.3d 507, 512 (9th Cir. 2001). 

At a minimum, “good cause” means excusable neglect. Boudette v.

Barnette, 923 F.2d 754, 756 (9th Cir. 1991). With respect to the

discretionary component of the rule, the district court has

discretion to grant an extension even absent good cause. Mann v.

Am. Airlines, 324 F.3d 1088, 1090 (9th Cir. 2003).

ANALYSIS

The Complaint in this case was filed on June 9, 2005. 

Accordingly, the deadline to serve Hurd passed on October 7,

2005. However, service was not effected until March 2006, six

months beyond the deadline. Milovich argues that he attempted to

serve Hurd on at least two occasions at Hurd’s place of

employment, PacifiCorp. PacifiCorp refused to accept service for

Hurd stating only that Hurd was on disability leave. PacifiCorp

correctly replies that it was not required to accept service on

behalf of Hurd and that Milovich made no attempt to serve Hurd at

any place other than PacifiCorp until the present Motion to

Dismiss was filed with this Court.

Pursuant to Hurd’s declaration, he has been absent from

PacifiCorp since August 2004, due to a disability. Hurd Decl.

1:24-25.

Case 2:05-cv-01448-MCE -DAD Document 18 Filed 03/28/06 Page 3 of 5
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

4

In addition, Hurd declared that he has resided at the same

address for approximately six years. Id. at 2:3-4. Hurd further

declared that Milovich has visited Hurd’s address on several

occasions. Id. at 2:8.

In order to show good cause, Milovich must allege at a

minimum excusable neglect for failing to timely serve Hurd. 

Boudette, 923 F.2d at 756. Milovich offers no excuse for his

failure to serve Hurd except that PacifiCorp could have accepted

service on behalf of its employee Hurd but refused to do so. The

Court finds that Milovich has not met his burden of showing

excusable neglect in failing to timely serve Hurd.

As noted above, the Court may exercise its discretion to

grant an extension even absent good cause. Mann, 324 F.3d at

1090. The Court may consider the following in its consideration:

(a) the party to be served personally received actual notice of

the lawsuit; (b) the defendant would suffer no prejudice; and (c)

plaintiff would be severely prejudiced if his complaint were

dismissed. Hart v. United States, 817 F.2d 78, 80-81 (9th Cir.

1987). There is no evidence in the record that Hurd had actual

notice of this lawsuit. In addition, there is no evidence that

Milovich would be severely prejudiced were this Court to dismiss

Hurd. While it is true that Milovich would likely suffer some

inconvenience by dismissing Hurd, there is no evidence he would

suffer any prejudice. Accordingly, the Court orders dismissal as

to Defendant Hurd without prejudice.

///

///

///

Case 2:05-cv-01448-MCE -DAD Document 18 Filed 03/28/06 Page 4 of 5
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

5

CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, the Court dismisses John

Hurd from this action without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: March 27, 2006

_____________________________

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:05-cv-01448-MCE -DAD Document 18 Filed 03/28/06 Page 5 of 5