## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it
N o. 10

- 3301 M AR I A C ARDE NAS, et al., P la intif fs-A pp ella nts, v. C ITY OF C HI CAGO, a muni ci palc o r po r at i o n, a nd A L E J A ND R O G A L L E GO S, a C hicag o Police Offi cer, D efend a nts-A pp ellees.

A pp eal from the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the N o rthernDi stricto f Illino is, Eas tern Div isi on. No . 08 C3174

— Charle s R. Norgle, Sr. , Judge .
A RGUED J UN E 8, 2011

— D ECI DE D J UL Y 20, 2011

Befo re P OSNER, K ANN E , an d H A MI L T ON, C ircu it Judges . K ANN E , Cir cu i tJudg e . Ch ic a g o police offi cer A lej an d ro Gall ego s l ed a t eam o fo ffi cer s i n executi ng a search wa r r a nta tthe a pa r t men to fMar i a C a r de na s , Ev a nh i do Car den as, a nd Nat al i a Bar r o n ( th e “P l ai nt i ff s” )
. The o f fi ce r s en te r ed th e apa r tment, wi th o utk no ck i nga nd an no unci ngthe i r pr es en ce , a nd the n h an dcuff ed an d h ar sh ly h an d led th e re sid en ts . Th e re sid en ts su b se q u en tly2 N o. 10

- 3301

su ed th e Ci tyo fChi ca g o a nd O ffi ce r Ga l l eg o s, b r i ng i ng th ree sta te
- l aw a nd t wo fede r alc l ai m s ba se d o n the al l ege dly unl aw ful sea rch. They di d not pro perl y s er ve Offi cer Gall ego s w i th proce ss, how eve r, and he m ov ed to dism i ss the com pla i nt aga i nst hi m m or e than 360 d ays aft er se rv ice w as d u e. T h e d ist r i c t c ou rtgra n te d h is m ot ion to dism i ss, fi nd i ng tha t the si ngl e a tte m pt at se r vi ce was ina dequa te , tha t no goo d c au se f o r the f ai l ur e was sh o wn, an d th at an ex te ns i o n was no t w arra nted by the c i rcum stances. I t then dis m i sse d the Ci ty, as the Ci t y c o ul d n o tb e h e l d l i a b l e u nd e r I l l i no i s l aw wi t h o u tth e o f fi c e r ’ s p r e s e n c e i n th e s u i t
. We a ffi r m.

I. B ACK GR OUN D Of fi ce r Ga l l eg o s o bt ai ne d a s ea r chw ar r an t f o r the r es i den ce o fM ar i a C arden as , Ev an hi do Ca r den as , a nd N atal i a Bar ro n, autho ri zi ng o ffi cer s to sea rch the a partm en t f o r a want ed i ndivi dual, na r co ti cs , mone y , a nd drug par aphernal i a. The te am o fo ffi cer s, led b y Offi cer Gall ego s, ente re d the apar tm ent o n Decem ber14 , 20 07, wi th o utknoc ki ngo r a nno unc i ngthe i r pr es en ce . The w ar ra nt di d not a uthori ze thi s pro cedure. A ccor ding to the com pla i nt, each of the Pl ai nti ff s w as i n th e resi dence, thre ate ned w ith fi re ar m s, and re str ai ned agai nst hi s o r her w i l l

. The Pl ai nti ff s a l l ege thatthe offi cer s sea rc h ed r ec k l es sl y , de st r o y i ngs o m e be l o nging s an d da m ag i ng t he a pa r t men ti t s e l f

. T he o ff i cer s l e fte mpt y - ha nd e d, havi ng f ound no p er son oro bj ect described i n the w ar ra nt. Beli evi ng the o f fi cer s’ co nd uct vi ol ate d thei r ri ghts, the Pl ai nti ffs s ued Offi cerGal l ego s a nd the Cityo fN o. 10

- 3301 3

Of fi c er Gal l eg os neither par t i c i pat ed i n n or obj ec t ed t o the 1 rem ov al. Chi ca g o i n s ta te co ur t o n A pr i l 22 , 2 00 8, a l l eg i ngunl awful e xe c ut i o n o fa s e a r c h wa r r a nt, a s s a ul t, b a t t e ry , and a f e d e r a l c o u n to fu n l a wfu l s e a r c h a n d s e i z u r e . T he Pl ai nti f f s a tte m pted to ser ve b ot h d efendants o n M ay 9, 200 8 , t hr o ugh t he Co o k Co un t y S he r i ff

. Th e S he r i ffsucc e s s fu l l y s e r v e d th e Ci t y , b u tO ffi c e r G a l l e g o s ’ s s u mm ons

— w hi ch the Pl ai nti ff s had di re cted t o the Chi cago Pol i ce Depar tm en t ( “CPD ”) H eadquarte rs , car e o f th e S upe r i nt en den t

— w as re turned unserved o n M ay 12, 2008
. The City r em ove d the ca se to f edera l co u rt o n June 2, 2008
. The r em ova l not i ce s tat ed that O ffi cerGal l ego s

1 ha d not yet be en served

. Cou ns el for the P laint iffs then ca lled CPD o n J une 19, 20 08, and ask ed how to pr o per l y s er ve a CPD o ffi ce r . Co unsel under to o kno furtherse rv i ce- re l ate d eff or t until N ove m ber12 , 20 08, when he s en t a l et te r t o the Ci ty ’ s co uns elr eque st i ng th at th e C i t y w aiv e s er vic e fo r O ffice r G alle go s o r th at it atl e a s tp r o v i d e O ffi c e r G a l l e g o s ’ s c u r r e n ta d d r e s s . T he tw o counselspok e o n Decem ber17, 20 08, and they di spu te the c o nt en ts of the t el eph o ne c o nv er sa ti o n: the C ity all ege s that i t desc ribed how the CPD Offi ce o fL ega l Af f ai r s f ac i l i ta te s th e se r vi ce o fa n o ffi ce r, b ut Pl a i n t i f f s ’ c o u n s e l c l a i ms th a tn o me n t i o n o fi n s u ffi ci en t ser vi ce was m ade. They a gr ee, however, thatthe C i ty i nd ica ted i t l acke d the autho ri ty to w ai ve ser vi ce on O ffice r G alle go s’s be h alf a n d th at it w ith h eld h is4 N o. 10

- 3301

The C ity’ s counsel ent ered an app earance o n O f fic er 2 Gal l eg os ’ s be hal fwhen i tfi l ed the j oi ntm ot i on. addr es s due t o po l i ci es r eg ar di ngo ffi ce r s afety a nd pri vacy . The City a nd Offi cerGal l ego s j oi ntl y m ove d to dism i ss the s uito n Se ptem ber28, 2 00 9. They fi rs t a rg ued that, 2 be ca us e Of fi ce r Ga l l eg o s ha d neve r b ee n s er ve d, the c om p lain t a ga in st h im m u s t b e d ism iss ed u n d er R u le 12( b) ( 5)
. Th e m oti on not ed that the CPD’s Offi ce o fLegal A f f ai rs was the appropri ate entity t o f aci l i tat e per sonal se r vi ce o n Offi ce r Ga l l eg o s. T he y the n a r g ue d tha t th e com pla i nt ag ai nst the Ci ty m ust be di sm iss ed und er Rule 12( b) ( 6) bec ause the s tat e’ s Tor t I m m unity Act w oul d not s up portm unici pall i abi l i ty re sul ti ng fro m an offi cer ’ s a ct where the o ffi cerhi m sel fwas not l i abl e. T h e P lain tiffs op p os ed th e m ot ion s, cla im in g t h a t th eir at te m pt to s er ve Offi ce r Ga l l eg o s th r o ug h th e S upe r i ntendent was suffi ci ent a nd t hat the Ci ty counsel ’ s s tat ed set tl em ent intenti ons l ed them to bel i eve fu rther ser vi ce at t e mpt s we r e un ne c e s s a r y . W hi l e the mot i o ns to dism i ss w er e pend in g, the Pl ai nti ff s o btai ned an al i as su m m on s for O ffice r G alle go s on O c to b er 14 , 20 09 . T h e ir counselse rv ed the sum m ons thro ugh CPD ’ s Offi ce o f LegalA f f ai rs o n N ove m ber 9 , 20 09, approxi m ate l y 5 25 da y s a ft e r the s ui twa s r e mov e d. T h e d ist ric t c ou rtg ra n te d t h e j oin t m ot ion to d ism iss . I t firs t d et er m in ed th at th e P lain tiffs h a d n ot p ro p er ly ser ved Offi cer Gall ego s w i thi n the 120- day l i m i t est abl i sh ed byRul e 4 ( m )
. I t al so de te r m i ne d tha t th e Pl ai n-N o. 10

- 3301 5 ti f f s la c ke d goo d cause forthe f ai l ed ser vi ce a nd decl i ned to gr ant a di scr et i onar y e xtensi on. The di str i ct c ourtthen deter m i ned th at , witho ut Offi cerGal l ego s i n the sui t, l i ab i l i tywoul d no t l i e ag ai ns t the C ity. I t di smi ss ed th e Pl aint i f f s’ s ui t wi thpr ej udi ce o n F eb r ua r y 1 5, 201 0. The distri ct c ourtsubse quentl y deni ed the Pl ai nti ff s’ m oti on to al tero r am end the j ud gm ent, i n w hi ch theyar gued that the c ourthad not consi dered al l o fth e app ro pri ate f ac to r s i n i ts e xt en si o n de ci si o n.

II. A NA LYSIS The Pl ai nti f f s no w appeal the d i sm i ssa l o fthei r sui t, pr es en tingt wo i ss ue s f o r o ur re vi ew. F i r st, the y c o nt en d th at th e d istri ct cou rt erred in gran ting O ffic e r Ga ll egos’s m o ti on to di smi ss pur su an t to Rul e 12 ( b) ( 5)
. The y a r g ue th at th ey su c c es sfu lly se rv ed O ffice r G al leg os w ith in t he a l l o t t e d t i me a nd tha t

— ifwe fi nd theydi d not

— th e di st r i ctc o ur t er r ed i n de ny i ngthe m a n e xt en si o n dur i ng whi chthe y c ou ld per f ec t se r vi ce . S ec o nd, the y c o nt en d that i fwe c oncl ud e the di str i ct c ourter re d i n i ts ser vi ce ofpro cess deter m i nati ons, we m ust r eve rs e i ts gr ant o f the Ci ty’ s m oti on t o d i sm i ss pu rs uant to Rule 12 ( b) ( 6) and rei nstat e thei r cl ai m s a gai nst the Ci ty. W e d o not re ac h an d ex p re ss n o op in i o n o n th eir se c on d iss u e, as it i s cl ea r l y c o ndi ti o ne d upo n o ur de te r m i na ti o n r eg ar di ng thei r fi rs t i ssue. A fterco m m enci ng a f edera l sui t, the pla i nti ffm ust e ns ur e tha te a c h de f e nd a ntr e c e i v e s a s ummon s a nd a cop y of th e com p lai nt against it. Fed

. R. Civ. P. 4(b), ( c)(1). Unl es s th e pl ai nt i f fc ande m o ns tr at e g o o d c au se f o r b eing6 N o. 10

- 3301 unabl e t o do so , she m u st a c com pli sh thi s s er vi ce o f pr o c e s s wi t hi n 1 2 0 da y s o f fi l i ng t o a v o i d po s s ib l e di sm i ssa l o fthe sui t. Fe d . R. Civ. P. 4( m )
. The sa m e 1 20- day p eriod ap p li es w he re suits are r e m o v e d to fed eral court f ro m st ate co urt, exce pt thatthe peri od com m ences upon th e d a t e o frem ov al. See Fed

. R. Civ. P. 81(c)( 1); Rom o v. G ulf Stream Co ach, Inc. , 2 50 F.3d 11 19, 1122-23 (7th C ir. 20 01 ); Wal l ac ev. M i cros of tCorp. , 5 96 F. 3d 703, 70 6 ( 10th Cir
. 20 10). These ser vi ce r equi re m ents provi de noti ce t o p ar t ies , see Hend erson v. U nited Sta tes , 51 7 U.S
. 65 4, 67 2 (19 96 ), en c ou ra ge p ar tie s a n d t h eir co u n se l to d ilige n tly p u rs u e t h eir ca se s, see Geig er v . Allen , 85 0 F
. 2d 330, 33 1 ( 7th Ci r. 19 88) , and tr i gge r a di str i ct c ourt’s abil i ty to ex er c ise j u ris d ict ion o ve r a d efe n d an t, see U nited Sta tes v. Ligas , 549 F.3d 497, 500 (7th C ir. 2008). A defendant m ay enf or ce the se rv i ce o fpro cess r equi re m en ts thr o ug h a pr et r i alm o ti o n to di smi ss . F ed. R. Ci v. P. 12( b) ( 5)
. The pl ai nti ffbea rs th e b u rden t o dem onst ra te that the di str i ct c ourthas j uri sdic ti on o verea ch def endant thr ough e f f ecti ve ser vi ce. See Ho m er v. Jon es-B ey, 4 1 5 F
. 3 d 74 8 , 7 5 4 ( 7 th C i r . 2 0 0 5 )
. I f, o n i t s o wn o r o n t he defen dan t’ s m o ti o n, the di st r i ctc o ur t fi nd s th atthe pla i nti f fhas n ot m et that burden and l acks go od cause f ornotper f ecting se rv i ce, the dist ri ct c ourtm ust e i ther di smi ss the s ui t o r s pec i fy a t i m e wi th i n whi chthe p lai nt iff m us t serve th e d efe nd an t. Fed

. R. Civ. P. 4(m ). A s the te xt o fthe rul e i nd i cate s, the deci si on o fwh ether t o d i s m iss or ex te n d th e p er iod for s er vic e is inh er en tly d isc re tio n ar y, L igas , 54 9 F
. 3d at 501, and w e wil l r evi ew the di str i ct c ourt ’ s j ud gm ent o nl y f orabuse o fthatdi sc re tio n . C o lem a n v . M ilw a uk ee B d. o f Sch . D irs. , 29 0 F
. 3dN o. 10

- 3301 7 93 2, 93 4 (7 th C ir. 20 02 ); Ku rka v . Iow a C n ty. , Iowa , 62 8 F.3d 953 , 957 (8th C ir. 2010).

A
. Insu fficien t Serv ice of P roc ess T h e P lain tiffs first arg u e t h a t t h e d ist ric t c ou rterr ed in i ts consi derat i on o fthei r i ni ti alat tem pt to se rv e Offi cer Gall ego s. They c on tend thattheyhad proper l y s er ved O ffice r G al l eg os on M ay 9, 20 08 , an d th at w e s h ou ld r e i n s t a t e th e i r c l a i ms a c c o r d i n g l y . We r e v i e w deno vo th e dist ri ct c ou rt ’ s dete rm i nati on r ega rdi ng the suffi ci ency of th e Pla in tiffs ’ se rv ice o fp ro c es s. Se euBID , Inc . v. G oD add y Grp., Inc. , 623 F.3 d 4 2 1 , 423-24 (7th C ir. 2010); Wil li am s v. Leach , 938 F.2d 769 , 771 (7th C ir. 1991). The Pl ai nti f f s’ co ntenti on that they pr op er l y s er ved O f fi c e r G a l l e g o s wi th i n 1 2 0 da y s a s r e q u i r e d b y R u l e 4 ( m) lac ks m er i t. Thei r ass er ted be l i efthattheypro pe rly ser ved Offi cerGal l ego s o n M ay 9, 20 08

— as w ell as t h e ir in c re d ibl e cl ai m that“[ i ] t was o nl y upon be i ng se rv ed w i th Defendant’s M oti on t o Dism i ss” thattheyr eal i zed that thei r att em pt w as “supposedlydefi ci ent”

— i s fl at ly bel i ed by ( 1) the re turn o f t he sum m ons thre e days l ate r m arked as not serve d , ( 2) their post-rem oval i nq uiry re ga r d i n g t h e p ro p er m ea n s o f se rv ice , an d (3) th eir r eque stf o r the c i tyt o wai ve s er vi ce o n Offi ce r Ga l l eg o s’ s be ha l f

. The y ne ve r th el es s ar g ue , unc o nv i nc i ngl y , tha t th e Superi ntendent i s the de f act o h ead o fthe Offi ce o f L egal A ff airs and that serving th e sum m ons on th e Sup erin te n d en t’s offic e w as es se n tia lly th e s am e a s g ivin g it to the Offi ce o fLe g alAf f ai r s. The y a l so c o m pl ain abo ut th e dif fi cul tyo fs er vi ngpo l i ce o ffi ce r s i n g en er al

. But8 N o. 10

- 3301

n e i t h e r p o i n te x p l a i n s h o w th e i r a t t e mp ta ts e r v i c e c o mpli ed w i th ei therthe sta te orfedera l r ule s. P e r h a p s th e P l a i nt i ff s b e l i e v e th a to ff e r i n gth e s u mm ons to anothe r offi ce o n th e s am e fl oo r as the c or re ct offi ce s houl d s u ffice , an d th u s w ish u s t o d ee m th eir si ngul arat tem pt val i d. W hethersu ch an e ff or t should ar gu ab ly b e e ffec tiv e h as n o b ea rin g on w h et h er it w as l e g a l l y s uffi c i e nt
. Be c a us e thi s a t t e mpta ts e r v i ce occur re d bef or e the cas e was r em ove d, I l l i noi s ser vice of p ro c es s ru les go ve rn w h et h er th e att em p t w as le g ally su fficie n t. Al l e n v . F e rgus on , 7 91 F. 2d 611, 61 6 n. 8 ( 7th C ir. 1986). U nd er I llin o is l aw , serving an i nd ivi d ua l’ s em plo yero r ot her pu tat i ve age nt i s no t s uffi ci ent f or se rv ice on th e i n d ivid u al. See 735 I l l

. Com p. S tat
. 5/2- 203. Even i fthe Feder alRule s of C ivi l Pro cedure appli ed to thi s s i ngul arat tem pt at ser vi ce, the Pl ai n tiff s hav e no t sh o wn th atthe S upe r i nt en den t w as a n a utho r i ze d a g en t to receive servic e of proc ess on Offi cer G all egos’s beh alf

. See Fed. R. Ci v. P. 4( e) ( 2) ( C). A c c or dingl y, the dist ri ct cour t di d not e rri n deter m in in g th at the Pl ai nti ff s had no ts e r v e d O f fi c e r Ga l l e g o s wi thi n the 1 2 0

- da y p e r i o d.

B. D e ni al of

Ext e ns i on Despit e know i ng tha t the sum m ons f orOffi cerGal l ego s w as re turned u ns e r v e d, the P l a inti ff s underto ok no s er vi cere l ate d e ff or ts unti l wellafterthe 120- day deadl i ne had passed. Per haps beca use o fthi s unexpla i ned l apse, they re nounce any ar gum ent that they had goo d cause for th e i r l a c k o f s e r v i c e a n d th a t th e y we r e e n t i t l e d t o t heN o. 10

- 3301 9

re su ltin g c om p u lso ry ex te n sio n . See Fed

. R. C iv . P
. 4(m ); Panar as v. Li q ui d Carb oni c Indu s . Corp. , 94 F. 3d 338, 34 0 ( 7th Cir
. 19 96)
. I nstea d , the se cond prongo fthe Pl ai nti ff s’ ar gum ent i s that the di str i ct c ourter re d in it s re fusalto gr ant them a d isc reti onar y e xtensi on o fti m e i n w hi ch to ser ve Office r Gall ego s. They a l l ege thatthe dist ri ct co ur t ab us ed i ts di sc r etio n b ec au se i t f ai l ed to t ak e th e r el ev an t f ac to r s i nt o c o ns i der at i o n a nd b ec au se the ba l an ce o fha r dsh i ps m i l i ta te d a n e xt en si o n. The y a skus to re ver se i ts deci si on a nd r ei nstat e thei r cl ai m s no w that Offi cerGal l ego s has bee n ser ved w i th pro cess . The dis tr i ct c ourtdecl i ned to extend the d ead l i ne for ser vi ce a nd chos e i nstea d to dism i ss the c l ai m s a gai nst Offi cerGal l ego s. I n d oin g so, i t a cknowle dged that the e xp i r a t i o n o f the s t a t ut e o f l i mi t a t i o ns wo ul d bar re fi l i ng o fthe sui t, but cor re ctl y no ted thatthi s f acto r alo n e ne ith er re q u ire d n or j u st ified an e x te n sio n . See Panar as , 94 F. 3d at 341; Kurka , 6 28 F
. 3d a t 9 59
. The di st r i ctc o ur t ul ti m at el y de te r m i ne d tha t th e f au l t f o r the p rofoun d de lay rested squ arely on Plaintiff s’ coun sel’s shoul ders: “Counse l m ad e no o therat tem pts atse rv i ce, though i t s houl d have be en aware that it w oul d fa ce ser i ous c onse quence s if itul ti m ate l y f ai l ed to se rv e a n ess en tia l p ar ty. The Courtse es no r eas on t o al l ow Counsel m or e t i m e t o acco m pli sh wh at i t s houl d have done se ver alm ont hs ag o. ” Card e nas v. Ci ty of Chi cago , 2010 W L 61062 1, at *5 ( N
. D
. I ll

. Feb. 15, 2010). O n ap p eal, the P lai nt iffs argue th at th e d istric t cou rt w as req uire d t o b alanc e the pa rties’ ha rd sh ips in ex erci si ng i ts disc re ti on byco nsi deri ng fi ve fa cto rs they10 N o. 10

- 3301 dist i l l fro m var i ous c ase s: ( 1) wh etherthe expir ati on o f a s tatut e o fl i m i tat i ons du ri ng the pending acti on w oul d preventr efi l i ng, ( 2) wh etherthe defe nd ant e vaded se r vi ce , ( 3) whethe r the de f en dan t’s abi l i tyt o de f en d w oul d be prej ud i ced by an exte n sio n, ( 4) wh ether th e defen dan t ha d a ctua l no ti ce o fthe l aws ui t, a nd ( 5) whethe r the defen dan t was e ve nt ua l l y s er ve d. The Pl ai nti f f s a re co rr ect th at dist ri ct c ourt s s houl d consi der the rel ati ve hardshi ps ofthe parti es i n ar ri vi ng ati ts disc re ti onar y c hoi ce b etween dis m i ssa l and exte nsi on of t im e. Se eCol e m an , 290 F.3d at93 4; Z apat a v. Ci ty of N ew Yo rk, 5 0 2 F
. 3 d 1 9 2 , 1 9 7( 2 d C i r . 2 0 0 7 )
. R u l e 4 ( m) does not sp ec ify which f acto rs the dist ri ct c ourtm ust c o n s i d e r i n e x e r c i s i n gi t s d i s c r e t i o n, seeU ni t e d S t at e s v. M cLaugh li n , 4 70 F
. 3d 69 8, 7 00 ( 7th C ir. 20 06 ) ( no ting that the r ule “s pe c i fi es no cr i ter i a f orthe exer ci se of me r c y ” ) , bu tth e P l a i n t i ff s c o r r e c t l y i d e n t i fy s o me fac to rs th at th e d ist r i c t c ou rtm ay co n sid er in it s d ec isio n . Se e, e . g. , Cole m an , 29 0 F
. 3d at 934 ( harm to defe nd ant’ s abi l i ty to defe nd , rec eip t o factual not i ce, ex p irati on of statu te of l im itations); M cLaugh li n , 47 0 F. 3d at 701 (ev as ion o fse rv i ce, adm i ssi on o fl i abi l i ty, w in d fall to d efe n d an t); Troxel l v. Fe dders of N
. Am
. , Inc. , 160 F. 3d 381, 38 3 ( 7th Ci r. 19 98) ( actualnot i ce an d e ve n tu al s er vic e). Y et th e P lain tiffs p ro p os e o n ly th o se f ac to r s th eyb el i ev e f av o r the i r c ha nces o fs ec ur i ng an exte ns ion , overlooki ng other ac cep table con side ra t i o ns

— su cha s whethe r the y e ve r r eque st ed ane xte ns i o n fr o m the c o urt due t o di ffi cul ti es i n pe r f ec ting se rv ice (th ey d id n ot ) an d w h et h er th ey d ilige n tly p u rs u ed se rv ice d u rin g t h e a llot te d p er iod (th ey d idN o. 10

- 3301 11 not ). Furth er, even i f th e balanc e of ha rd sh ips ap p ears to f avo r an exte n sio n , the di str i ct c ourtr eta i ned i ts discre ti on t o hold t he Pl ai nti ff s a ccountabl e f orthei r acti o ns

— or, m or e a ccurat el y, i nacti on

—byd is m i ss i ngthe c as e. Cole m an , 29 0 F
. 3d at 934. A di st r i ctc o ur t sh oul d, o fc o ur se , c o ns i derthe a r g um en ts a n d fac to rs ad va n c ed by th e p lain tiff, s e ei d. , an d it shoul d pay part i cul arat tenti on to a cr i ti calf acto r such as t h e ru n n in g of a st at u te of lim ita tio n s, s e ePanaras , 94 F. 3d at 341. But w hi l e we enco urag e co urts to do s o as a m att ero fprac tice , no author i ty re quir es a di str i ct co ur t to e xpl ain on th e r ec o r d i ts de ta i l ed r ea so ni ng f o r e ac h pl ai nt i f f

- pr o po se d f ac to r . And ce r ta i nl y nothi ng forb id s i t s co n sid er at ion of fac to rs p lain tiffs te llin gly i gnor e. The di str i ct c ourt ’ s o rderi n thi s ca se d oe s not s ho w i t s e xp l i ci t con s i de r a t i o n o fa l l the p o t e nt i a l l y a ppli cabl e f acto rs , but the o rderspeci fica lly add re sse s th e st atut e o fl i m i ta ti o ns a nd r ej ec ts i t as a basis for e xtension u n der the ci rcum sta nces. The di str i ct c ourtal so note s those f acto rs i t r ega rded as dis posi ti ve: Pl ai nti ff s’ l ack ofdi l i gence , a yea r’s del ay i n ser vi ce e ven a fter being inform ed of th e prop er m eth od , and cou n s e l’s i na c tio n in the f ace ofthe known se ri ous c onse quences ofhi s f ai l ure to serv e an es senti alparty. Fi nal l y, i n i ts dispos i ti on o fthe Pl ai nti ff s’ m oti on t o am end the j ud gm ent, the dist ri ct c ourt i nd i cate d i t had al re ady ev al uated th e fac to r s adv o ca te d a nd the c as es pr es en te d b y the P lain tiffs in o p p os itio n to d ism iss al. U ltim ate l y, the dist ri ct c ourtr eco gni zed i ts disc re ti on in a p p l yi ng Rul e 4 ( m ) , ev al uated the ci rcum sta nces of12 N o. 10

- 3301 the Pl ai nti ff s’ f ai l ure to ser ve Offi cerGal l ego s, and dete rm ined that the Pl ai nti ff s’ co unsel had onl y hi m sel fto bl ame. I fa di st r i ctc o ur t “pr o per l y s et s o utthe r el ev an t l aw and m ake s no factual fi nd i ngs that ar e cl ear l y e rr oneous, an abuse o fdi scr eti on e xi sts o nl y i fi ts deci si on w as a rb itr ar y a n d u n re as on ab le.” Troxell , 16 0 F
. 3d at 383. The Pl ai nti f f s hav e o ff er ed us “no r ea so n to thi nk tha t th e di s t r i c tc o u r twa s c o mpl e t e l y o ffb a s e ” i n d e c i d i ng not to re l y e xcl usi vel y o n the f acto rs theypro pose. Id. T h e d ist ric t c ou rtco u ld h av e e x c u se d th e la c k of t im ely se r v i c e , b u t we c a n n o t c a l l i t s c h o i c e n o t to g r an t an ex te n sio n u n re as on ab le

— especi al l y g i ven bo th that Pl ai nti f f s’ co u nselm ade no att em pt to se rv e Offi cer Gal l egos in the 4 83 da y s be twe enr emov ala nd the fi l i ng ofthe mo t i o n t o di s mi s s a nd a l s o tha ta no the r 4 2 da ys el apsed bef or e co unsel fi nal l y s er ved the Offi ce o fLegal A ffair s. I nd eed, i t s tr i kes us a s e m i nentl y r eas onabl e t o hol d the Pl ai nti f f s a ccountabl e f orthei r unexp lained in ac tio n in t h e fa c e o f th eir c r u c i a l bu rd en to tim ely ser ve Offi cerGal l ego s with proc ess . W e c on c lude that th e di st r i ctc o ur t di d no t ab us e i ts di sc r et i o n b y g ra nt i ng Offi cerGal l ego s’ s m oti on t o dism i ss.
C
. D is m is sal w it hout P re judice Bef o r e cl o sing, we m us t addr es s o ne f i na l a spe cto fthe d ist r ict co u rt ’s o rd er . A d ism iss al p u rs u an t t o a R u le 12 ( b) ( 5) mot i o n o r di na r i l y s ho ul d b e en te r ed wi thout p r e ju d ice . S eeFe d . R. C iv. P . 4(m ); Ligas , 54 9 F
. 3d at 501. T h e d i s t r i c tc o u r t, h o we v e r, d i s mi s s e d th e c l a i ms ag ai ns t Of fi ce r Ga l l eg o s wi thpr ej udi ce b as ed o n theN o. 10

- 3301 13 f act th at t h e a pp l i cabl e s tatute o fl i m i tat i ons had expir ed w hi l e the cas e was pending. Car de nas , 20 10 W L 610 621, at * 5. The Pl ai nt i f f s ar g ue d f o r th e fi r st ti m e at oral argum en t tha t its or d er w as incon sisten t w ith Ru le 4( m )’ s cl ear“without prej ud i ce” re quir em ent. Both the dist ri ct courtand the Pl ai nti ff s co rr ectl y r eco gni ze that any r efi l ed sui t would be ti m e-bar re d. That bar eff ects a re sul t s i m i l arto a dism i ssa l with pr ej ud i ce: “[I]f th e s ta tu te of lim ita tio n s h as m ea n w h i l e e x p ire d it w i l l be the l i m i ta tio ns defense that gr eet s [ any] new acti o n, whi c h wi l l mak e the c a s e j us t a s de a d a s a di sp o s i t i o n o n th e me r i t s . . . . ” D a v i d S i e g e l, P r a c t i c e C o mm entar y o n Fe d . R. Ci v. P. 4, C4- 38, r epri nted at 28 U .S .C .A . F ed . R. C iv. P . 4 at21 1 (W es t 2 00 8). A n d in si m i l ar ci rcum sta nces, we previou sly n ot ed that di smi ss alwi thprej udi ce was a ppr o pr i at e wher e th e pla i nti f fdi d not m eetRule 4( m ) and w here the sta tute of lim ita tio n s e x p ire d d u rin g t h e fe d e ra l ca se . Conove rv. Lei n , 8 7F
. 3 d 9 0 5 , 9 0 8 ( 7 th C i r . 1 9 9 6 )
. Ac co r di ng l y , we fi nd no er ro r i n the dist ri ct c ourt ’ s di sm i ssa l s.

III. C ON CLU SI ON The Pl ai nti f f s di d not s er ve Offi cerGal l ego s with proce ss w i thi n th e tim e a l l ott ed by the F edera l Rule s o f Civi l Pro cedure. Because the di str i ct c ourtdi d not abuse i ts disc re ti on i n decl i ni ng to exte nd the peri od i n w h ich the Pl ai nti f f s cou ld se rv e hi m , we A F F I R M i ts dism i ssa l o f the Pl ai nti f f s’ sui t.

7- 20- 11