# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _
No. 1 3- 26 05

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ And re Pe er

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el la nt

v.

Tom Vil sa ck , Secre ta ry , Uni te d S ta te s Dep art m en t o f Agr ic ul tu re

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll ee

__ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Eas te rn Dis tri ct of Ark an sa s - Hel en a

__ __ __ __ __ __
Su bm it te d: Ju ne 9, 2 01 4 Fil ed : J un e 2 5, 2 01 4 [Un pu bl is he d]

__ __ __ __ __ __ Befo re BYE, COLLOTON, an d KELLY, Circ ui t J ud ge s.

__ __ __ __ __ __

PER CURI AM.

And re Pe er fi le d s ui t ag ai ns t To m Vil sa ck
, in hi s cap aci ty as Secr et ary of th e Uni te d St at es Dep art m en t of Agr ic ul t u r e ( USDA), al le gi ng Vil sa ck ha d vi ol at ed
Peer ’s rig ht s un de r 42 U.S.C. § 19 85
, 42 U.S.C. § 20 0 0d
, an d th e Equ al Cred itOpp or tu ni ty Act , 1 5 U.S.C. § 16 91

. The di st ric t co ur t di sm is se d Peer ’s c om pl ai nt 1
fo r fai lu re t o c om

pl et e se rv ic e o f pr oc es s. We affir m

.

I

Peer fil ed su it ag ai ns t Vi l s a c k on May 24
, 20 12

. Peer so ug ht se ve ral

e x t en si on s be twee n May 20 12 an d Ju ne 20 13 to co m pl et e pr op er se rv ic e up on Vil sa ck
, th e U.S. Att or ne y fo r th e East ern Dis tri ct of Ark an sa s, an d th e U.S. Att or ne y Gen eral

. The se ex te ns io ns were so ug ht be cau se Peer was in se tt le m en t ne go ti at io ns wit h th e USDA. The di st ric t co ur t gr an te d Peer ’s ex te ns io ns an d to ld Peer to pr ov id e
pr oo f of se rv ic e in acco rd an ce wit h Ru le 4( i) of th e Fed eral Ru le s of Ci vi l Pro ced ur e by May 10 , 20 13 . Peer fa il ed to pr ov id e pr oo f of se rv ic e by t hi s d ead li ne . On J un e 18
, 20 13
, th e di st ric t co ur t en te red an or de r req ui rin g Peer to fil e pr oo f of se rv ic e by
Ju ne 21 , 20 13 , or Pe er’s co m pl ai nt wou ld be di sm is se d wi th ou t p reju di ce.

Thre e da y s aft er th e de ad l i n e V il sa ck fil ed a m ot io n fo r ex te ns io n of ti m e to fil e an an swe r. A f

t e r t h a t m ot io n was fil ed th e di st ric t co ur t en te red an or de r di sm is si ng Peer ’s co m

pl ai nt , whi ch de ni ed Vil sa ck ’s m ot io n as m oo t. Late r th at da y , Peer fil ed pr oo f of se rv ic e on th e U.S. Att or ne y an d th e U.S. Att or ne y Gen eral

. Afte r fil in g pr oo f of se rv ic e, Peer m ov ed to se t as id e t h e o r d e r di sm is si ng th e cas e an d

req ue st in g ad di ti on al ti m e to co m pl y wit h th e co ur t’s or d e r if th e co ur t fo un d th e

se rv ic e was de fect iv e. The di st ric t co ur t de ni ed Peer ’s m ot io n st at in g Peer ’s se rv ic e of th e U.S. At to rn ey was st il l d e f i c i e n t

. Peer no w a pp eal s th e or de r di sm is si ng th e

cas e an d t he de ni al of t he m ot io n t o s et asi de th e o rd er o f di sm is sa l.

The Hon or ab le D.P. Mar sh al l, Jr
., Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e East ern 1 Dis tri ct of Ark an sa s.

-2

-II

A di st ric t co ur t’s di sm is sa l of an act io n fo r un ti m el y se rv ic e an d it s d e c i s i o n
to de ny an ex te ns io n o f t i me t o effe ct se rv ic e of su m m on s is rev ie wed fo r ab us e of di sc ret io n. Kur ka v. Io wa Cn ty., Io wa, 62 8 F.3 d 95 3, 95 7 (8 th Ci r. 20 10 ). The de ni al of a m ot io n to al te r or am en d a jud gm en t is al so rev ie wed fo r ab us e of di sc ret io n. Id

.

Und er Ru le 4( m ) of th e Fed eral R u l e s o f C i vi l Pro ced ur e, th e pl ai nt iff m us t de m on st rat e go od cau se fo r fai lu re to se rv e wit hi n th e pr es cri be d 12 0- da y pe rio d.
Co la sa nt e v. We l l s Farg o Co rp ., 81 F. App ’x 61 1, 61 2- 13 (8 th Ci r. 20 03 ). If go od

cau se is no t sh own , th e di st ric t co ur t m ay gr an t an ex te n s i o n if th e pl ai nt iff de m on st rat es ex cu sa bl e n eg le ct . Id. at 61 3.

The de te r mina ti on of go od cau se is en tru st ed to th e so un d di sc ret io n of th e di st ric t co ur t. Id

. Goo d cau se is li ke ly sh own whe n th e pl ai nt iff ’s fai lu re to co m pl et e

se rv ic e in a ti m el y fas hi on is a res ul t of th e c o n d u c t o f a th ird pe rs on (typi cal ly t he

pr oc es s se rv er), th e de fen da nt ha s ev ad ed se rv ic e or en ga ge d in m is le ad in g co nd uc t, th e pl ai nt iff ha s di li ge nt ly tri ed to effe ct se rv ic e or th ere are un de rs ta nd ab le

m it ig at in g c irc um st an ces , or t he pl ai nt iff is pro ceed in g p ro se or i n fo rm a p au pe ris

. K u r k a , 6 2 8 F.3 d at 95 7. “ A sh owi ng of go od cau se req ui res

. . . so m e reas on ab l e ba si s fo r no nc om

pl ia nc e wit h t he rul es .” Id

.

Here, Peer ha s fai le d to sh ow an y of th es e ci rc u ms t a n ces were th e reas on he f ai le d to co m

pl et e se rv ic e in ti m el y fas hi on

. The di st ric t co ur t al lo wed m ul t i p l e

ex te ns io ns fo r Peer to co m pl et e go od se rv ic e be fo re it pu t a fir m de ad li ne on Peer to
pr ov e th at se rv ic e ha d be en co m pl et ed

. Peer ’s fai lu re to m eet th i s d e a d l i n e was si m pl y du e to hi s own ne gl ig en ce. Thu s, th e di st ric t co ur t di d no t ab us e it s di sc ret io n in co nc lu di ng Peer ha d fa il ed to de m on st rat e g oo d c au se for hi s fa il ur e to co m

pl et e

se rv ic e.

-3

-S i n ce go od cau se was no t sh own , Peer m us t de m on st rat e th at hi s fai lu r e t o

m ak e ti m el y se rv ic e was du e to ex cu sa bl e n e g l e c t. See Co la sa nt e, 81 F. App ’x at 61 5. Fact or s to co ns id er whe n ev al ua ti ng whe th er ne gl ect is ex cu sa bl e in cl ud e: th e
po ss ib il it y of pr ejud ic e to th e de fen da nt , th e le ng th of th e de la y an d th e po te nt ia l im pa ct on jud ic ia l pr oc eed in gs , th e reas on fo r th e de la y (wh et he r th e de la y was wit hi n th e pa rty’ s reas on ab le co nt ro l), an d whe th er th e pa rty act ed in go od fai th

. Kur ka
, 62 8
F.3 d a t 9 58 . The rea so n fo r th e d el ay is th e k ey

fact or . Id.

Peer was di rect ed by th e di st ric t co ur t to pr ov id e se rv ic e i n acco rd an ce wit h
Ru le 4 ( i )
, w hi ch he fai le d to do

. The fact th at Peer was en ga ge d in se tt le m en t

ne go ti at io ns di d no t rel ie ve hi m o f hi s se rv ic e ob li ga ti on

. Peer di d no t of fer an y

su ffi ci en t ex pl an at io n fo r th e d el ay th at wou ld co ns ti tu te ex cu sa bl e n eg le ct

.

“ The di st ric t co ur t m

us t weig h th e effe ct on th e pa rty req ue st in g th e ex te ns io n
ag ai ns t th e pr ejud ic e to th e de fen da nt .” Kur ka
, 62 8 F.3 d at 95 8. Peer is si gn ifi can tl y affe ct ed by th e di sm is sa l of hi s cl ai m be cau se it is no w ba rred by th e st at ut e of li m it at io ns , bu t “ th e ru nn in g of th e st at ut e of li m it at io ns do es no t req ui re th e di st ric t

co ur t t o e xt en d ti m e fo r se rv ic e of pr oc es s.” Ada m s v. All ie d Sig na l Gen. Avi at io n Avi on ic s, 74 F.3 d 88 2, 88 7 (8 th Ci r. 19 96 ). Vil sa ck was al read y on no ti ce an d as ke d fo r ti m e to res po nd
, so th ere was li tt le pr ejud ic e to Vil sa ck

. Alt ho ug h th e di ffer en ce i n d i s p a r i ty is gr eat ly fav or in g Peer
, th e di st ric t co ur t ga ve Peer in st ru ct io ns an d a

reas o n a bl e ti m e to pr ov id e pr oo f of pr op er se rv ic e. Peer fai le d to ad he re to th os e in st ru ct io ns an d of

fere d no su ffi ci en t ex pl an at io n fo r th at fai lu re. Thu s, we co nc lu de th e di st ric t co ur t di d no t ab us e it s d i s c r e t i on whe n it fo un d th ere was no ex cu sa bl e

ne gl ect

.

III

Fo r th e fo reg oi ng reas on s, we af fir m th e d is tri ct co ur t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-4

-