120-day period expired as of June 24, 2003. If the 120-day time period is not met, the court “shall
dismiss the action without prejudice ... 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.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). Furthermore, if the plaintiff cannot show
good cause for the defect in service, the court still has discretion to direct that service be effected
within a specified time. See Panaras v. Liquid Carbonic Indus., Inc., 94 F.3d 338, 340-41 (7th Cir.
1996).

Drwiega does not attempt to show good cause for his failure to comply with Rule 4.
Furthermore, Drwiega’s pro se status, alone, does not establish good cause under Rule 4. See
Dunmars, 22 F. Supp. 2d at 783.

While Drwiega has not established good cause to excuse his improper service, the Court finds
that an extension of time to effect service is proper in the present case. Drwiega, acting pro se,
attempted to properly serve Infrared in a timely manner and has timely pursued his claims. See
Garrett v. Miller, 2003 WL 1790954 (N.D. Ill. April 1, 2003); Miles v. WIMX Radio Network, 2002
WL 1359398 (N.D. Ill. June 20, 2002) (both allowing extension of time to effect service in light of
plaintiff's pro se status and timely attempt of service). Accordingly, Drwiega is given 30 days from
this Order to properly serve Infrared or obtain from Infrared a written waiver of formal service of the
summons and complaint.

For the foregoing reasons, Infrared’s Motion to Dismiss is denjed.

y [Neer

_ JON W. DARRAH
“United States District Judge

Dated: Quad 27) 2008



+, Minute Onde: sem (06/97)

United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois

N; f Assigned Judy 0 Sitting Judge if Oth
oye Magistrate Judge John W. Darrah than Assigned Jodge
CASE NUMBER 03 C 1365 DATE 8/27/2003
CASE GEORGE DRWIEGA vs. INFRARED TESTING, INC.
TITLE

[in the following box (a) indicate the party filing the motion, e.g., plaintiff, defendant, 3rd party plaintiff, and (b) state briefly the nature

of the motion being presented.]

MOTION:

DOCKET ENTRY:

(ly Qo Filed motion of [ use listing in “Motion” box above.]

(2) Oo Brief in support of motion due

(3) o Answer brief to motion duc___. Reply to answer brief due

(4) a Ruling/Hearingon___sset for at

(5) Oo Status hearing{held/continued to] [set for/re-sct for]on__— set for at

(6) Qo Pretrial conference[held/continued to] (set for/re-set for}on__———ssetfor_ at

(7) a Trial{set for/re-sct for]on_—aat_—

(8) ao [Bench/Jury trial] [Hearing] heid/continued to at

(9) oO This case is dismissed [with/without] prejudice and without costs[by/agreement/pursuant to]
COFRCP4(m) O Local Rule 41.1 CUFRCP41(a)\(1) OO FRCP41(a)(2).

(io) % [Other docket entry] Status hearing held and continued to 10/22/03 at 9:00 a.m. Enter

Memorandum Opinion And Order. Infrared’s motion to dismiss is denied. Defendant’s answer to be filed

on or before 9/10/03. Parties to exchange Rule 26 disclosures by 9/10/03.

ah ff [For further detail see order attached to the original minute order.]

No notices required, advised in open court.

No notices required, umber of novices

Notices mailed by judge's staff.

Notified counsel by telephone. date docketed

V | Docketing to mail notices.

coarirgorias

. . va vapiysid Sn
Mail AO 450 form. 4ungs Lon Is iC

Copy to judge/magistrate judge

late mailed notice

courtroom
LG deputy’s
initials ——
“""" Date/tinge rkeelved in

central Clerk's Office rman deputy initials

1 EZ gf £9

1:



UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION
GEORGE DRWIEGA,
Plaintiff, No. 03 C 1365 ay
v. Judge John W. Darrah
INFRARED TESTING, INC.

Defendant.

www wre SS wD

. Jug

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Plaintiff, George Drwiega, filed suit, pro se, against Defendant, Infrared Testing,
Incorporated (“Infrared”), alleging age and national origin discrimination. Presently before the Court
is Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss for lack of proper service.

On February 24, 2003, Plaintiff filed suit. On April 23, 2003, a status hearing was held in
this Court. At that time, Plaintiff had not yet attempted service upon the Defendants. On
May 1, 2003, Plaintiff mailed a copy of the complaint and the summons to Infrared by Priority Mail
through the United States Post Office. On May 15, 2003, Infrared moved to dismiss for lack of
proper service. On June 26, 2003, a briefing schedule was put into place on Infrared’s Motion to
Dismiss.

Service on a corporation is valid when it complies with Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure 4(h), which states that service shall be effected:

(1) in a judicial district of the United States in the manner prescribed
for individuals by subdivision (e)(1), or by delivering a copy of the
summons and of the complaint to an officer, a managing or general

agent, or any agent authorized by appointment or by law to receive
service of process....


Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(h). Additionally, Rule 4(e)(1) allows service to be effected “pursuant to the law
of the state in which the district is located....” Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(e)(1). Pursuant to Illinois law,
service may be perfected on a private corporation “by leaving a copy of the process with its
registered agent or any officer or agent found anywhere in the State...” 735 ILCS 5/2-204.

Furthermore, both the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Illinois law allow a plaintiff to
have the defendant waive service. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(d); 735 ILCS 5/2-213. Under both of these
waiver provisions, the plaintiff is required to inform the defendant of the consequences of
compliance and the failure to comply with the request and include an extra copy of the notice and
request as well as prepaid means of compliance in writing. Fed. R. Civ, P. 4(d); 735 ILCS 5/2-213.

In the instant case, the Plaintiff mailed a copy of the complaint and the summons to Infrared.
This service did not comply with Rule 4(h) or 735 ILCS 5/2-204 because Plaintiff has failed to
demonstrate that a copy of the complaint and summons were served upon an officer, a managing or
general agent, or any agent authorized by appointment or by law to receive service of process. in
addition, a mailing does not constitute “delivery” as required by Rule 4. See Miles v. WTMX Radio
Network, 2002 WL 1359398 (N.D. Ill. June 20, 2002); Dunmars v. City of Chicago, 22 F. Supp. 2d
777, 781 (N.D. Ill. 1998) (Dunmars).

Furthermore, Plaintiff did not perfect service in accordance with either Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(d)
or 735 ILCS 5/2-213 because he failed to inform the defendant of the consequences of compliance
and the failure to comply with the request and include an extra copy of the notice and request as well
as prepaid means of compliance in writing.

Under Rule 4{m), service of the complaint and summons is to be made within 120 days after

the filing of the complaint. In this case, Drwiega filed his complaint on February 24, 2003; the