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 

Richard Shupe, et al., 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

Lewis & Lewis Insurance Agency 

Incorporated, et al., 

Defendants.

No. CV-18-00159-TUC-DCB

ORDER 

 On July 24, 2018, this Court denied a Motion to Dismiss in part as to Defendant 

Lewis and Lewis Agency, Inc., (Lewis’) assertion that Plaintiff failed to name the proper 

party and for improper service. The Court held it would not dismiss the action on a mere 

technicality, specifically, the difference in naming Defendant Lewis & Lewis Insurance 

Agency with an ampersand instead of “and” and Jim Lewis instead of James Crane Lewis 

Jr. Lewis filed an Answer at the same time it filed the Motion to Dismiss so the Court 

assumes Lewis was served with the Summons and Complaint which were the subject of 

the Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff failed to file the proof of service for Defendant Lewis as 

required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(l). 

 Also on July 24, 2018, the Court denied the Plaintiff’s1

 request to serve Defendant 

Qualitas Compania de Seguros SA Grupo (Qualitas) by publication. Instead, the Court 

extended the time for service on this foreign corporation by 60 days. On September 27, 

2018, the Plaintiff filed a Motion for Sanctions for Qualitas’ failure to respond to the 

Plaintiff’s service by waiver. Defendant Qualitas makes a special appearance for the sole 

 

1

 Plaintiff Maria Shupe withdrew from this action on June 4, 2018. But see (Notice of 

Withdrawal (Doc. 7) signed by Richard Shupe). 
- 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 

purpose of opposing the Motion for Sanctions. Qualitas correctly notes that the waiver of 

service provisions relied on by the Plaintiff only apply to defendants located within the 

United States. Plaintiff did not file a Reply to this Response. 

While Plaintiff is pro se, the Court notes that he is not without experience. He has 

filed a total of 15 cases in federal court. To the extent the Plaintiff might argue that as a 

pro se litigant he is not held to the same standard as an attorney, the Court clarifies that 

while it may liberally construe such things as his pleadings, “pro se litigants must follow 

the same rules of procedure that govern other litigants.” King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 

(9th Cir. 1987). His pro se status does not immunize him from complying with the civil 

rules of procedure, especially when he has been advised of them either by this Court or the 

Defendant. The Plaintiff is advised to review Rule 4(f) and (h) for serving a foreign 

corporation. The Court shall extend the time to serve Qualitas by 30 days, and shall 

thereafter dismiss Qualitas as a Defendant unless the Plaintiff seeks leave for further 

extension of time and can show he is proceeding in a fashion which will ultimately 

culminate in properly serving Qualitas. 

Accordingly, 

 IT IS ORDERED that the Motion for Sanctions (Doc. 22) is DENIED. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Plaintiff shall comply with Rule 4(l) and 

file proof of past service on Lewis and any future service on Qualitas. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff is granted a 30 day extension of time 

to serve Qualitas. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that in the event Plaintiff fails to comply with this 

Order for the proper service of the Summons and Complaint on Qualitas, including filing 

the proof of service, this Court shall dismiss Qualitas from this action without further notice 

to the Plaintiff. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Notice of Withdrawal shall be refiled signed 

by Maria Shupe, not her husband. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Plaintiff shall comply with the Federal 
- 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 

Rules of Civil Procedure and the Rules of Practice for the United States District Court for 

the District of Arizona (the Local Rules). See www.azd.uscourts.gov. 

 Dated this 17th day of December, 2018.