Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_12-cv-08201/USCOURTS-azd-3_12-cv-08201-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jennifer Dorsey
Defendant
John Halikowski
Defendant
Doris Ann Warcola
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 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Doris Ann Warcola, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

John Halikowski, Director, Arizona 

Department of Transportation; Jennifer 

Dorsey, Assistant Attorney General, 

Defendants.

No. CV-12-8201-PCT-GMS

ORDER 

 Pending before the Court is Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. (Doc. 9.) For the 

reasons discussed below, the Court grants the Motion. 

The Defendants moves to dismiss Plaintiff Doris Warcola’s Complaint for failure 

to serve process pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(5). “A federal court does not have 

jurisdiction over a defendant unless the defendant has been served properly[.]” Direct 

Mail Specialists, Inc. v. Eclat Computerized Techs., Inc., 840 F.2d 685, 688 (9th Cir. 

1988) (citing Jackson v. Hayakawa, 682 F.2d 1344, 1347 (9th Cir. 1982)). 

When service of process is challenged, a plaintiff bears the burden of showing that the 

court's personal jurisdiction is properly exercised. Hirsh v. Blue Cross, Blue Shield, 800 

F.2d 1474, 1477 (9th Cir. 1986). Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m), service of process 

must be made within 120 days after the complaint is filed unless the court otherwise 

directs: 

If a defendant is not served within 120 days after the complaint is filed, the 

court--on motion or on its own after notice to the plaintiff--must dismiss the 

Case 3:12-cv-08201-GMS Document 15 Filed 06/24/13 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 

action without prejudice against that defendant or order that service be 

made within a specified time. But if the plaintiff shows good cause for the 

failure, the court must extend the time for service for an appropriate period. 

Service upon a government entity like the Arizona Department of Transportation 

(“ADOT”) must be made by: (1) delivering a copy of the summons and of the complaint 

to its chief executive officer; or (2) serving a copy of each in the manner prescribed by 

that state's law for serving a summons or like process on such a defendant. Fed. R. Civ. P. 

4(j)(2). Rule 4(d) authorizes a plaintiff to request waiver of service, however, a defendant 

is not required to respond to the request. If a defendant fails to respond without good 

cause, a court must require the defendant to pay the expenses later incurred in making 

service. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(d)(2). However, the plaintiff must still effect service of process 

on that defendant in a timely manner under Rule 4(m). See Troxell v. Fedders of North 

America, Inc., 160 F.3d 381, 383 (7th Cir. 1998); Cambridge Holdings Group, Inc. v. 

Federal Ins. Co., 489 F.3d 1356, 1362 (D.C. Cir. 2007)). 

 Warcola has not complied with the Rule 4 requirements and has failed to serve 

process on ADOT. On October 10, 2012, Warcola mailed copies of the Summons and 

Complaint to ADOT Director John Halikowski. She included in that mail a “Waiver of 

the Service of Summons.” (Doc. 9-1 at 2.) However, it appears that Warcola signed and 

dated her name in the space designated for the “Printed name of party waiving service of 

summons.” (Id.) ADOT contends that it did not and was not required to waive service. 

On November 29, 2012, ADOT’s counsel notified Warcola that it had yet to be served 

with process and requested to speak with her to discuss the matter. (Id. at 5.) The Parties 

conferred on December 13, 2012 at which time ADOT’s counsel discussed service 

options with Warcola. (Id.) She agreed to effect proper service on ADOT. (Id.) On 

February 5, 2013, the Court issued an Order stating that a review of the file showed that 

the Complaint had not been properly served on ADOT within the time required by Rule 

4(m). (Doc. 8.) The Court required Warcola to show good cause within fourteen days for 

failure to serve. (Id.) Warcola did not reply to that Order. ADOT submits the affidavit of 

Case 3:12-cv-08201-GMS Document 15 Filed 06/24/13 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 

Mary Currie, who is authorized to accept service of process for ADOT, stating that as of 

February 13, 2013, ADOT had not been served with the Complaint. (Doc. 9-1 at 7.) A 

review of the file shows that as of the date of this Order, Warcola has not filed a notice of 

service of process. 

 The rules governing service of process are strict, and Warcola’s failure to comply 

cannot be excused after repeated requests to do so. 

 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 9) is 

granted without prejudice to Plaintiff’s right to re-file and appropriately serve the 

Complaint. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate this action and enter judgment 

accordingly. 

 Dated this 24th day of June, 2013. 

Case 3:12-cv-08201-GMS Document 15 Filed 06/24/13 Page 3 of 3