Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-00023/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-00023-4/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Department of Homeland Security
Defendant
Loren Ishi
Defendant
Transportation Security Administration
Defendant
Jennifer Zamora
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

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

JENNIFER ZAMORA, 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY, TRANSPORTATION 

SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, LOREN 

ISHII, and DOES 1-20, 

 Defendants. 

_____________________________/ 

No. 02:07-CV-023 JAM EFB 

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO DISMISS

Plaintiff Jennifer Zamora (“Zamora”) brought this action 

against the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”), the 

Transportation Security Administration (“TSA”) and Loren Ishii 

(“Ishii”) (collectively “Defendants”) alleging sexual 

harassment, retaliation and hostile work environment under Title 

VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”). Defendants 

now move for dismissal pursuant to Rules 4(m) and 12(b)(5) of 

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Zamora opposes the 

1

Case 2:07-cv-00023-JAM-EFB Document 39 Filed 06/05/08 Page 1 of 7
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

 

motion. For the reasons stated below, Defendants’ motion is 

DENIED.1

I. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 

On January 4, 2007, Zamora filed the instant action 

alleging sexual harassment, retaliation and hostile work 

environment under Title VII. Compl. ¶¶ 24-37. On July 27, 

2007, Defendants moved to dismiss on the basis that the 

complaint was untimely filed and on the basis that service of 

process was insufficient. Docket at 14. On January 24, 2008, 

this Court granted the motion on the ground that the complaint 

was untimely filed. Docket at 22. In doing so, the Court did 

not reach the question of whether dismissal was appropriate for 

insufficient service of process. Docket at 22. On February 7, 

2008, Zamora filed a motion for reconsideration. Docket at 24. 

On April 16, 2008, this Court granted the motion for 

reconsideration on the ground that the complaint was in fact 

timely filed. Docket at 31. In this Order, the Court 

specifically noted that it would consider a renewed motion to 

dismiss on the question of whether service of process was 

insufficient. Docket at 31. On April 25, 2008, Defendants 

1

 Because oral argument will not be of material assistance, 

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

L.R. 78-230(h). 

2

Case 2:07-cv-00023-JAM-EFB Document 39 Filed 06/05/08 Page 2 of 7
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

filed a motion to dismiss for insufficient service of process. 

Docket at 32. 

II. OPINION 

Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides 

in pertinent part: 

If service of the summons and complaint is not made 

upon a defendant within 120 days after the filing of 

the complaint, the court, upon motion or on its own 

initiative after notice to the plaintiff, shall dismiss 

the action without prejudice as to that defendant or 

direct that service be effected within a specified 

time; provided that if the plaintiff shows good cause 

for the failure, the court shall extend the time for 

service for an appropriate period. 

Rule 4(m), as amended in 1993, “requires a district court to 

grant an extension of time when the plaintiff shows good cause 

for the delay,” and “permits the district court to grant an 

extension even in the absence of good cause.” Efaw v. Williams, 

473 F.3d 1038, 1040 (9th Cir. 2007). “When considering a motion 

to dismiss a complaint for untimely service, courts must 

determine whether good cause for the delay has been shown on a 

case by case basis.” In re Sheehan, 253 F.3d 507, 512 (9th Cir. 

2001) (citation omitted). Good cause, at a minimum, means 

excusable neglect.” Boudette v. Barnette, 923 F.2d 754, 756 

(9th Cir. 1991). In order to establish good cause, a plaintiff 

may be required to show that “(a) the party to be served 

received actual notice of the lawsuit; (b) the defendant would 

suffer no prejudice; and (c) plaintiff would be severely 

3

Case 2:07-cv-00023-JAM-EFB Document 39 Filed 06/05/08 Page 3 of 7
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

prejudiced if his complaint were dismissed.” In re Sheehan, 253 

F.3d at 512; see also Wei v. State of Hawaii, 763 F.2d 370, 372

(9th Cir. 1985) (plaintiff can establish “good cause” for delay 

longer than the 120-day service period by demonstrating that 

service had been attempted but not completed, plaintiff was 

confused about the requirements of service, or that plaintiff 

was prevented from serving defendants by factors beyond his 

control). The inadvertence of counsel does not qualify as good 

cause for failure to comply with Rule 4. Wei, 763 F.2d at 372. 

Under Rule 4(m), courts have broad discretion to extend 

time for service even without a showing of good cause. U.S. v. 

2,164 Watches, 366 F.3d 767, 772 (9th Cir. 2004). A court may, 

for instance, extend time for service retroactively after the 

120-day service period has expired. Id. “In 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.’ ” Efaw, 473 

F.3d at 1041. “If the court declines to extend the time for 

service of process, the court shall dismiss the suit without 

prejudice; it shall not enter judgment in the case.” 2,164 

Watches, 366 F.3d at 772. 

 In the present case, it is undisputed that Zamora did not 

serve the summons and complaint upon the United States Attorney 

for the Eastern District of California (“United States 

4

Case 2:07-cv-00023-JAM-EFB Document 39 Filed 06/05/08 Page 4 of 7
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

 

Attorney”) or the Attorney General of the United States 

(“Attorney General”) within 120 days after filing the complaint. 

Rather, Zamora served the United States Attorney ten days after 

the period for service and the United States Attorney General 

approximately four months after the period for service.2 Because 

it is undisputed that service of process was untimely, the Court 

must dismiss the action unless it determines that an extension 

of time is warranted. 

While Zamora maintains that “good cause” exists to warrant 

an extension of time, this Court finds that she has failed to 

offer sufficient facts to support this assertion. Zamora, for 

instance, did not offer facts demonstrating that Defendants 

suffered no prejudice from the delay, nor did she offer facts 

demonstrating that she would suffer severe prejudice if her 

complaint was dismissed. Nor does Zamora contend that either 

she or her attorney attempted to timely serve the United States 

Attorney or the Attorney General, she was confused about the 

requirements for service of process, or was prevented from 

effecting service within the 120-day limit by factors beyond her 

2

 It is further undisputed that Zamora has not served Ishii 

due to an inability to locate him. The Court finds that 

Zamora’s failure to effectuate service properly deprives this 

Court of jurisdiction over Ishii. The Court thus dismisses 

Ishii from this action, without prejudice, for failure to comply 

with Rule 4. 

5

Case 2:07-cv-00023-JAM-EFB Document 39 Filed 06/05/08 Page 5 of 7
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

control. As such, Zamora has not shown the requisite “good 

cause” to require this Court to grant an extension of time. 

Nevertheless, as noted above, this Court may exercise its 

discretionary authority to grant an extension of time. In this 

regard, although it is clear that Zamora should have effectuated 

service in a more expeditious manner, the Court finds that an 

extension of time is warranted because the length of delay was 

relatively short and Defendants have suffered little prejudice 

from the delay. In reviewing the efforts of Zamora, the Court 

finds that she endured significant delays while exhausting her 

administrative remedies in pursuit of her claims. Defendants 

contend that Zamora’s actions have unilaterally delayed this 

federal action and that her delays in filing and serving her 

complaint have legally prejudiced their ability to defend a case 

involving allegations of sexual harassment and hostile work 

environment which occurred more than five years ago. This Court 

disagrees and finds that Defendants contributed to the five year 

delay of which they now complain by unnecessarily delaying the 

resolution of Zamora’s administrative claim. 

 For these reasons, Defendants’ motion is denied. The Court 

hereby extends the 120-day service period with respect to the 

United States Attorney and the Attorney General. Accordingly, 

service of process has been properly effectuated on the United 

States. 

6

Case 2:07-cv-00023-JAM-EFB Document 39 Filed 06/05/08 Page 6 of 7
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

III. ORDER 

For the reasons stated above, Defendants’ motion to dismiss 

is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: June 5, 2008 

 

7

Case 2:07-cv-00023-JAM-EFB Document 39 Filed 06/05/08 Page 7 of 7