IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

CRISTIAN CETINA, §

Plaintiff, §

§

§ Civil Action No. 3:04-CV-2373-M

v. §

§

LIFETIME FITNESS, §

Defendant. §

FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION

OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Pursuant to the District Court’s Standing Order of Reference filed February 2, 2005, this case

has been referred to the undersigned Magistrate Judge for pretrial management. 

Plaintiff filed this case on November 4, 2004. In an Order dated January 27, 2005, this Court

noted that Defendant had not yet been served. Plaintiff was ordered to effect service within 120

days of that date. On June 9, 2005, this Court issued an Order to Show Cause to Plaintiff for failure

to file a valid return of service on Defendant Lifetime Fitness, as required by FED. R. CIV. P. 4(m).

Plaintiff was ordered to show cause in writing on or before June 24, 2005, why service could not be

made.

On June 24, 2005, Plaintiff filed his response. Plaintiff acknowledged receiving the Court’s

order to show cause, and stated that good cause exists for its failure to serve Defendant because he

“was unable to understand the common concepts of servicing a certain business entity with a

summons ordered by the court because of reason of mental status and incompitance [sic] of the

certain procedure.” However, Plaintiff stated that he did understand the process sufficiently to

attempt to hire a process server, who apparently failed to effect service. Plaintiff asked for an

additional extension of time in which to serve Defendant or for court assistance in effecting service.

 

 Case 3:04-cv-02373-M Document 12 Filed 07/11/05 Page 1 of 3 PageID 31
Proper service must be made within 120 days of filing a complaint or the action is subject

to sua sponte dismissal, without prejudice. FED.R.CIV.P. 4(m). However, dismissal is not proper

“if the plaintiff shows good cause for the failure” to properly effect service and a court should extend

the time to serve the defendant. Id. The plaintiff bears the burden of showing good cause. Kersh

v. Derozier, 851 F.2d 1509, 1512 (5th Cir. 1988). “To establish ‘good cause’ the plaintiff must

demonstrate at least as much as would be required to show excusable neglect, as to which simple

inadvertence or mistake of counsel or ignorance of the rules usually do not suffice.” Lindsey v. U.S.

R.R. Retirement Bd., 101 F.3d 444, 446 (5th Cir. 1996) (quoting Peters v. U.S., 9 F.3d 344, 345 (5th

Cir. 1993)). A plaintiff also may be required to show that the party to be served personally received

actual notice of the lawsuit; the defendant would not suffer any prejudice by the court extending the

120-day deadline; and the plaintiff would be severely prejudiced if his complaint were dismissed.

Hickman v. U.G. Lively, 897 F.Supp. 955, 959 (S.D. Tex. 1995) (citing Boudette v. Barnette, 923

F.2d 754, 756 (9th Cir. 1991)). 

The explanation offered by Plaintiff does not justify his failure to serve Defendant. Other

than one alleged attempt to hire process server, Plaintiff has made no attempt to obtain service on

Defendant despite being afforded additional time to do so. The Court notes that he has filed several

lawsuits in this court and is clearly aware of the procedural requirements of service of process.

Although Plaintiff claims that he suffers from depression, he provides no more than conclusory

allegations to support his claim that such depression has affected his ability to obtain service on

Defendant. Because Plaintiff has not demonstrated “good cause” for failing to obtain proper service

on Defendant, the Court determines that his claims against Defendant should be dismissed without

prejudice, pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 4(m).

 

 Case 3:04-cv-02373-M Document 12 Filed 07/11/05 Page 2 of 3 PageID 32
It is therefore RECOMMENDED that all claims and causes of action asserted against

Defendant be hereby DISMISSED without prejudice to the refiling of same.

SO RECOMMENDED, on this the 11th day of July, 2005.

 ___________________________________

 IRMA CARRILLO RAMIREZ

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

 

 Case 3:04-cv-02373-M Document 12 Filed 07/11/05 Page 3 of 3 PageID 33