FI LED U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT Febr uar y 2, 2007 T HOM AS K. KAHN CL E RK [ P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 06- 14042 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C . D ocketN o. 03 -000 43 -C V -J T C -3 T I N A M . L E P O N E - D E M P S E Y , S H A N N O N M . A L E X A N D E R , P la in tif f s - A p p e lla n ts , v ersu s C A R R O L L C O U N T Y C O M M I S S I O N E R S , e t a l., D e f e n d a n ts , C I T Y O F V I L L A R I C A , D E A N M A D D O X , O F F I C E R B R I A N C A M P , O F F I C E R R O B E R T M U L L I N A X , O F F I C E R J O H N D O E 1 , e t a l.,

D e f e n d a n ts - A p p e lle e s .2 ________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e N o r th e r n D is tr ic t o f G e o r g ia

_________________________ ( F e b r u ar y 2, 2007) B efo re B IR C H , M A R C U S an d W IL S O N , C i rcu i tJu d g es. W IL S O N , C i rc ui tJudg e: O n thi s appe a l , w e r e vi e w a di s tr i c tc our t ’ s di s m i s s a l w i thoutpr e j udi c e of the pl ai nt i ff

s’ com pl ai ntfor f

ai l ure t o t i m el y s erve the defendant s und er F e d. R . C i v. P . 4( m ) , a nd the c our t ’ s de c i s i on t o de ny a r e que s tf ora n e xt e ns i on of tim e to e f

f e c t s e r v ic e . B AC KG R OU ND O n A pr i l 17, 2003, the appe l l a nt s /pl a i nt i f f s T i na M . L e pone - D e m s e y a nd S ha nnon M . A l e xa nde rf i l e d the i rc om pl a i ntpur s ua ntt o 42 U . S . C . § 1983, a l l e gi ng tha tthe appe l l e e s / de f

e nda nt s C i ty of

V i l l a R i c a , D e a n M a ddox, B r i a n C a m p, R o b er t M u ll in ax , an d Jo h n D o es 3 -4 ’s an d th e C ar ro ll C o u n ty S h er iff’s D e pa r tm e ntvi ol a t e d the i rc ons t i tut i ona l r i ght s . T he pl a i nt i f f s a l l e ge d tha tthe de f e nda nt s unl a w f

ul l y e nt e r e d a nd s e a r c he d the i rhom e w i thouta w a r r a nt . T he pl a i nt i f f s a l s o a l l e ge d the y w e r e unl a w f ul l y a r r e s t e d a nd s ubj e c t e d t o e xc e s s i ve f o r c e .3

O n J ul y 31, 2003, L e ona r d D a nl e y ( “ D a nl e y ” ) , the pl a i nt i f f s ’ c ouns e l , s poke w ith D a v id M e c k lin ( “M e c k lin ” ) , C ity A tto r n e y f o rth e C ity o f

V illa R ic a , to i nf or m hi m of

the l a w s ui ta nd a s k w he the rM e c kl i n w oul d r e c e i ve c opi e s of the la w s u it v ia m a il. D a n le y c o n te n d s th a t M e c k lin s a id th a t h e w a s a u th o r iz e d to a c c e pts e r vi c e on be ha l f of the de f e nda nt s a nd w oul d w a i ve f or m a l s e r vi c e . O n or a b o u t J u ly 3 1 , 2 0 0 3 , D a n le y m a ile d M e c k lin s e r v ic e c o p ie s o f th e c o m p la in t, sum m on s, and a requestfor w ai ver of f orm al se rvi ce form s. M ec kl i n d i d n otre turn the w a i ve rof

s e r vi c e f or m s , a nd the pl a i nt i f

f s di d nota tt e m ptt o s e rve the C i ty of V illa R ic a o rth e in d iv id u a l d e f e n d a n ts in a n y o th e rm a n n e r . T h e d e f e n d a n ts d id n o t f ile a n a n s w e rto th e c o m p la in t. O n D e c e m be r23, 2003, the de f e nda nt s f i l e d a m ot i on t o di s m i s s the com pl ai ntfor i nsuffi ci ency of se rvi ce of proces s, ar gu i ng thatdi sm i ss al w as prop er si nce the pl ai nt i ff

s had fa i l ed t o p roperl y a nd t i m el y s erve the defendant s und er b o th th e F e d e r a l R u le s o f C iv il P r o c e d u r e a n d th e G e o r g ia R u le s o f C iv il P r o c e d u r e . U n d e rth o s e R u le s , th e p la in tif f s w e r e r e q u ir e d to s e r v e th e d e f e n d a n ts o n o r b efo re A u g u st1 5 , 2 0 0 3 . T h e p l ai n t i ffs resp o n d ed th atth e d efen d an t s’ m ot i on shou l d b e deni ed because M ec kl i n h ad agree d t o w ai ve form al se rvi ce . In the al t ernat i ve, the pl ai nt i ff s r equest ed thatthe di stri ctcourtgrantthem an e x te n s io n o f

tim e to s e r v e th e d e f

e n d a n ts .4

T he di s tr i c tc our tgr a nt e d the de f e nda nt s ’ m ot i on t o di s m i s s , f i ndi ng tha tthe p la in tif f s h a d f a ile d to c o m p ly w ith R u le 4 o f th e F e d e r a l R u le s o f

C iv il P r o c e d u r e . T he di s tr i c tc our tf

ound tha tthe pl a i nt i f

f s ha d notpr ope r l y s e r ve d e i the rthe C i ty of V i l l a R i c a orthe i ndi vi dua l the de f e nda nt s w i thi n the t i m e pe r i od a l l ow e d, a nd the pl ai nt i ff s f ai l ed t o sho w go od cause f or thei r f ai l ure. S peci fi ca l l y, the di stri ctcourt f o u n d th a t th e p la in tif

f s h a d n o t s h o w n g o o d c a u s e f o rth e irf a ilu r e to p e r s o n a lly s e r ve the appr opr i a t e C i ty of f i c i a l . T he r e f

or e , the di s tr i c tc our tdi s m i s s e d w i thout prej ud i ce the pl ai nt i ff

s’ cl ai m s a gai nstthe C i ty of V i l l a R i ca . T he di stri ctcourt a l s o f ound tha tthe pl a i nt i f

f s ha d f a i l e d t o s how “ good c a us e f or : ( 1) f a i l i ng t o s e r ve the i ndi vi dua l V i l l a R i c a de f e nda nt s w i thi n 120 da y s of f i l i ng the i rc om pl a i nt ; ( 2) th e irth r e e - m o n th d e la y in m a ilin g w a iv e rf o rm s to M e c k lin ; ( 3 ) th e irf a ilu r e to att em ptt o eff

ec tpers on al se rvi ce up on the i nd i vi du al V i l l a R i cadefe nd ant s w hen M e c kl i n di d notr e tur n the w a i ve rf or m s ; or( 4) the i rf

a i l ur e t o a s k thi s C our t , i n the thr e e m onths pr i ort o the V i l l a R i c a de f e nda nt s ’ f

i l i ng the i rm ot i on t o di s m i s s , f or an ext ensi on of t i m e t o serve these defe nd ant s. ” T here fore , the di stri ctcourt di sm i ss ed w i tho utprej ud i ce the pl ai nt i ff s’ cl ai m s a gai nstthe i nd i vi du al d e f e n d a n ts . T he pl a i nt i f

f s f i l e d a m ot i on f

orr e c ons i de r a t i on, a ga i n r e que s t i ng tha tthe d is tr ic t c o u r t a llo w th e m a n e x te n s io n o f tim e to s e r v e th e d e f

e n d a n ts to a v o idTh eplaintif fs ’ c a sea g ains t th eCarrollCounty de fend ants proc e e de d. CarrollCounty 1 Sheriff’ s Deputy

Phili p Wagner filed a

motion for summary

judgment, which the district cour t denied. Thedefendant Wagner a ppeale d the district court’s order denying his motion for summary judgment. We affirme d the judgment of the district cour t. See Lepone -Dempsey

v. Car ro ll Co un ty

Com m’rs , 159 Fe d. Appx., 916 (11th C ir. Dec . 15, 2005). Thereaf ter, the plaintiffs and the remainingdefendants entered into a settlement agreement and filed a joint motion to di smiss all claims against the defenda nt Wagner. 5 bei ng barr ed fr om re fi l i ng du e t o the st atut e of l i m i t at i on s. T he di stri ctcourt de ni e d the pl a i nt i f

f s ’ m ot i on w i thouta ddr e s s i ng the e f f e c ttha tthe s t a tut e of lim ita tio n s w o u ld h a v e o n th e p la in tif f s ’ c la im s . T h e p la in tif

f s w e r e e f f e c tiv e ly ba r r e d f r om r e f i l i ng the a c t i on a ga i ns tthe de f e nda nt s be c a us e the s t a tut e of l i m i t a t i ons ha d run. 1 ST AN DA RD OF RE VI EW We g e n e r a l l y r e v i e w de nov o a c ou rt ’ s i nt erpret at i on of R ul e 4 of the F eder al R u le s o f C iv il P r o c e d u r e . P r e w i t t E nt e rs . , I

nc . v . O r g. of P e tr ol e um E

x por t i ng C ou ntri es , 353 F . 3d 916, 920 ( 11th C i r . 2003) . H ow e ve r , w e r e vi e w f ora bus e of di sc re t i on a c ou rt ’ s di sm i ss al w i tho utprej ud i ce of a pl ai nt i ff’ s c om pl ai ntfor f ai l ure to tim e ly s e r v e a d e f

e n d a n t u n d e rR u le 4 ( m ) . B r o w n v . N ic h o ls , 8 F . 3d 770, 775 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 3 ) ( s ta tin g th e s ta n d a r d o f r e v ie w a s it ap p lie d to th e p r e d e c e s s o rto R ul e 4( m ) , f

or m e rF e d. R . C i v. P 4(

j ) ) . W e a l s o r e vi e w f

ora bus e of

di s c r e t i on a c o u r t’s d e c is io n to g r a n t a n e x te n s io n o f tim e u n d e rR u le 4 ( m ) . H or e nkam p v . V an W i nkl e & C o. , 40 2 F . 3d 11 29 , 11 33 (11t h C i r. 20 05 ).F e d. R.C iv. P. 4 (d) s tate s: 2 (2) An individual, cor

poration, or a ssociation that is subject to serviceunder subdivision (e ), (f ), or (h) a nd that re c e ive s n oti c eof

an ac tio n in

themann e r p ro vide d in

thi s p aragra

phha s a duty to avoid unnece ssary

costs of ser

ving thesummons. . . . I f a de fenda nt located within the United States fails to comply with a re quest for w aiver made by a plaintiff located within the United States, the cour

t shall impose the costs subsequently incurre d in effe ctingserviceon the defendant unless g ood causefor the f ailure beshown.

6 DI S C US S I ON A pl a i nt i f

f i s r e s pons i bl e f

ors e r vi ng the de f

e nda ntw i th a s um m ons a nd the c o m p la in t w ith in th e tim e a llo w e d u n d e rR u le 4 ( m ) . F e d .R .C iv .P . 4 ( c ) ( 1 ) . R u le 4( m ) r e qui r e s a pl a i nt i f

f t o pr ope r l y s e r ve the de f e nda ntw i thi n 120 da y s of the pl ai nt i ff fi l i ng the com pl ai nt . F ed. R . C i v. P . 4(m ). T here fore , the pl ai nt i ff s w er e re spon si bl e f

or prop er l y s ervi ng bo th the C i ty of V i l l a R i caand t he i nd i vi du al defe nd ant s w i thi n 1 20 days af t erfi l i ng thei r l aw sui t . T he pl ai nt i ff s w er e r equi re d t o serve the C i ty of V i l l a R i capu rs uantt o R ul e 4(j ), because the w ai ver of s ervi ce p r o c e d u r e s e t f

o r th in R u le 4 ( d ) d o e s n o t ap p ly to lo c a l g o v e r n m e n ts . See F e d. R . C i v. P . 4( d) ( s t a t i ng tha tonl y a n i ndi vi dua l , a c orpor a t i on, ora n a s s oc i a t i on a r e s ubj e c tt o s e r vi c e by w a i ve r ) . G i ve n the pl a i nt i f f s ’ onl y a tt e m ptt o s e r ve the 2 C ity o f V illa R ic a w a s b y th e w a iv e ro f s e r v ic e p r o c e d u r e , th e p la in tif f s f a ile d to p r o p e r ly s e r v e th e C ity o f V illa R ic a . T h e p la in tif

f s a ls o f a ile d to p r o p e r ly s e r v e th e in d iv id u a l d e f e n d a n ts w ith in the 12 0-day peri od . W hi l e the i nd i vi du al defe nd ant s a re subj ec tt o the w ai ver pr oc e dur e , the i ndi vi dua l de f e nda nt s di d notr e s pond t o the pl a i nt i f f s ’ r e que s tf

orAs the district court c orre ctly conclude d, the plaintiffs also properly failed to ser

ve the 3 defendants pursuant to the Ge org ia Rules of Civil P roce dure. 7 w a iv e ro f

s e r v ic e , a n d th e d e f

e n d a n t is n o t r e q u ir e d to w a iv e f o r m a l s e r v ic e . See F ed. R . C i v. P . 4(d)(2). W e have hel d thati f the defendantfa i l s t o res po nd t o servi ce by m ai l , the pl ai nt i ff

m ustef fe ctpers on al se rvi ce pu rs uantt o R ul e 4(e ). See M f rs. H anov e rT r us t C o. v . P ons oldt , 5 1 F .3 d 9 3 8 , 9 4 0 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 5 ) ( c itin g to Sc h n a b e l v . W

e lls , 9 2 2 F .2 d 7 2 6 , 7 2 8 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 1 ) ) , s u p e rs e de d in p a r t b y r u le a s s ta t e d i n Ho r e n ka mp , 402 F . 3d a t1132 n. 2. T he pl a i nt i f f s f a i l e d t o do s o. 3 I f the pl a i nt i f

f f a i l s t o pr ope r l y s e rve the de f e nda ntw i thi n 120 da y s , “ the co u rt , u p o n m o t i o n o r o n i t s o w n i n i t i at i v e aft er n o t i ce t o th e p l ai n t i ff, sh al l d i sm i ss the ac t i on w i tho utprej ud i ce . . . or di re ctthatse rvi ce be ef fe ct ed w i thi n a spec i fi ed tim e ; p r o v id e d th a t if

th e p la in tif

f s h o w s g o o d c a u s e f

o rth e f a ilu r e , th e c o u r t s h a ll e xt e nd the t i m e f

ors e r vi c e f

ora n appr opr i a t e pe r i od. ” F e d. R . C i v. P . 4( m ) . G ood cause e xi st s “ on l y w hen som e out si de fa ct or[, ] such as re l i ance on faul ty a dv i ce , ra ther than i nadv ert ence or negl i gence, prevent ed se rvi ce . ” P r is c o v . Fr ank , 929 F . 2d 603, 604 ( 11th C i r . 1991) ( pe rc ur i a m ) ( di s c us s i ng “ good c a us e ” unde rthe f o r m e rR u le 4 (

j) ) , s u p e rs e de d i n p a r t b y r u l e a s s ta t e d

i n Ho r e n ka mp , 40 2 F . 3d at 1 1 3 2 n .2 . E v e n in th e a b s e n c e o f g o o d c a u s e , a d is tr ic t c o u r t h a s th e d is c r e tio n to e x te n d th e tim e f

o rs e r v ic e o f

p r o c e s s . Ho r e n ka mp , 4 0 2 F .3 d a t 1 1 3 2 ; se e H enders on v. U

ni t ed Stat es , 517 U . S . 654, 663, 116 S . C t . 1638, 1643, 134 L . E d.8

2d 880 ( 1996) ( r e c ogni z i ng tha ti n the 1993 a m e ndm e nt s t o the rul e s , c our t s ha ve be e n a c c or de d the di s c r e t i on t o e nl a r ge the 120- da y pe r i od e ve n i n the a bs e nc e of s h o w in g g o o d c a u s e ) . T he di s tr i c tc our tc onc l ude d tha tthe pl a i nt i f f s f a i l e d t o de m ons tr a t e good c a us e f orf a i l i ng t o t i m e l y s e r ve the de f e nda nt s . T he di s tr i c tc our tf ound tha tthe pl a i nt i f f s “ ha ve nots how n di l i ge nc e i n the i re f f or t s t o s e r ve pr oc e s s on [ the defe nd ant s] and h ave f

ai l ed t o com pl y w i th R ul e 4. ” W e f i nd thatthe di stri ctcourt d id n o t a b u s e its d is c r e tio n in m a k in g th is d e te r m in a tio n . T h e p la in tif f s f a ilu r e to tim e ly s e r v e th e d e f

e n d a n ts w a s n o t th e f

a u lt o f s o m e o u ts id e f

a c to r , s u c h a s f

a u lty a d v i c e ; r a th e r , th e r e a s o n s f o rth e i rf a i l u r e we r e d u e t o th e p l a i n t i f f s ’ o wn n e g lig e n c e . See P risc o , 929 F . 2d a t604. W hi l e the pl a i nt i f f s m i ghtha ve ha d good r e a s on t o thi nk tha tthe y c oul d r e l y on M e c kl i n’ s a s s e r t i on tha the w oul d s i gn a nd r e tur n the w a i ve rf

or m s , the pl a i nt i f

f s w e r e r e s pons i bl e f

orf or m a l l y s e r vi ng the d e f e n d a n ts w h e n th e w a iv e rf o r m s w e r e n o t r e tu r n e d . A b s e n t a s h o w in g o f

g o o d c a u s e , th e d is tr ic t c o u r t h a s th e d is c r e tio n to e x te n d th e tim e f

o rs e r v ic e o f

p r o c e s s . Ho r e n ka mp , 40 2 F . 3d at11 32 -33. In H or e nkam p, w e s t a t e d th a tth e A d v i s o r y N o t e t o Ru l e 4 ( m) p r o v i d e d s o me g u id a n c e a s to w h a t f

a c to r s m a y ju s tif

y th e g r a n t o f

a n e x te n s io n o f

tim e a b s e n t a s h o w in g o f

g o o d c a u s e . Id . A l tho ug h n otan exhaust i ve l i st , the C om m i tt ee9

e xpl a i ne d tha t“ [ r ] e l i e f

m a y be j us t i f

i e d, f ore xa m pl e , i f

the appl i c a bl e s t a tut e of l i m i t a t i ons w oul d ba rthe r e f i l e d a c t i on, ori f

the de f e nda nti s e va di ng s e r vi c e or conceal s adefe cti n att em pt ed se rvi ce . ” F ed. R . C i v. P . 4(m ), A dv i sory C om m i tt ee N o t e, 1 9 9 3 A m en d m en t s. H ere, th e d i stri ctco u rt ’ s o rd er d en yi n g th e p l ai n t i ffs’ c l a i m s w i thoutpr e

j udi c e e f f e c t i ve l y ba r r e d the i rc l a i m s , be c a us e the s t a tut e of lim ita tio n s h a d ru n . T h e p la in tif f s a r g u e th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t f a ile d to s p e c if

ic a lly consi der thi s f

ac t or and o ther f

ac t ors i n d et erm i ni ng w hether t o g ra ntthem an ext ensi on of t i m e t o p er fe ctse rvi ce . T o d at e, w e have notspec i fi ca l l y s t at ed thata di stri ctcourtm ustconsi der w h e th e ra n y f

a c to r s w a r r a n t a n e x te n s io n o f tim e a b s e n t a s h o w in g o f g o o d c a u s e . O ther c i rc ui t s have hel d thati f apl ai nt i ff fa i l s t o sho w go od cause, the di stri ct courtm ustst i l l consi der w hether a ny addi t i on al fa ct ors, such as the runn i ng of a s ta tu te o f lim ita tio n s , w o u ld w a r r a n t a p e r m is s iv e e x te n s io n o f tim e . Se e P anar as v . L i qui d C ar boni c I

ndus . C or

p. , 9 4 F .3 d 3 3 8 , 3 4 1 ( 7 th C ir . 1 9 9 6 ) ; T ho m pson v. Br o wn , 91 F . 3d 20, 22 ( 5th C i r . 1996) ; Espi no za v. U ni t ed Stat es , 52 F . 3d 838, 841 ( 10th C i r . 1995) ; andP etruce l l iv. B oh ri ng er& R at zi ng er , GMHB , 46 F . 3d 1298, 1307- 08 ( 3d C i r . 1995) . W e a gr e e w i th ours i s t e rc i r c ui t s a nd hol d tha tw he n a di stri ctcourtfi nd s thata pl ai nt i ff fa i l s t o sho w go od cause f or fa i l i ng t o eff

ec t t i m el y s ervi ce pu rs uantt o R ul e 4(m ), the di stri ctcourtm ustst i l l consi der w hether10

a ny othe rc i r c um s t a nc e s w a r r a nta n e xt e ns i on of t i m e ba s e d on the f

a c t s of the ca se . O nl y a ft erconsi deri ng w hether a ny such fa ct ors e xi stm ay the di stri ctcourt exer ci se i t s di sc re t i on and ei ther di sm i ss the ca se w i tho utprej ud i ce or di re ctthat se rvi ce be ef

fe ct ed w i thi n a spec i fi ed t i m e. T he di stri ctcourt ’ s dec i si on t o d i sm i ss thi s c as e w i tho utprej ud i ce for f ai l ure t o t i m e l y e f

f e c ts e r vi c e w a s pr e m a tur e , a s i tdi d notc l e a r l y c ons i de r , a f t e rf i ndi ng tha tthe pl a i nt i f

f s f a i l e d t o de m ons tr a t e good c a us e , w he the ra pe r m i s s i ve e xt e ns i on of t i m e w a s w a r r a nt e d unde rthe f a c t s of thi s c a s e . A l though the runni ng of the st atut e of l i m i t at i on s, w hi ch barre d the pl ai nt i ff s f rom re fi l i ng thei r c l ai m s, do es n o t r e q u ir e th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t e x te n d tim e f o rs e r v ic e o f

p r o c e s s u n d e rR u le 4(m ), i tw as i ncum bentup on the di stri ctcourtt o atl ea stconsi der thi s f ac t or. T he r e f or e , w e r e ve r s e the or de rof the di s tr i c tc our ta nd r e m a nd the c a s e f or r e c o n s id e r a tio n in lig h t o f th is o p in io n . R EVER SED a nd R EM A N D ED .