Opinion ID: 2508093
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Did the District Court Err in Denying Jenkins's Motion to Dismiss the KEB Lawsuit for the Failure to Serve the Defendants Within Six Months of the Filing of the Complaint?

Text: On August 22, 2001, Jenkins filed a motion to dismiss the KEB lawsuit on the ground that the district court lacked jurisdiction because the defendants in that lawsuit had not been served with the summons and complaint within 180 days of the filing of the lawsuit. Jenkins relied upon Rule 4(a)(2) of the Idaho Rules of Civil Procedure, which provides: If a service of the summons and complaint is not made upon a defendant within six (6) months after the filing of the complaint and the party on whose behalf such service was required cannot show good cause why such service was not made within that period, the action shall be dismissed as to that defendant without prejudice upon the court's own initiative with 14 days' notice to such party or upon motion. There is nothing in the record indicating when any of the defendants were served in the KEB lawsuit. As Jenkins acknowledges in his brief, There is no record on appeal that indicates service or acceptance of service by any of the parties. He takes the position that if there is no evidence in the record showing timely service upon the defendants, the lawsuit must be dismissed. The Rules of Civil Procedure do not require that a plaintiff file a return of service showing when each defendant was served with process. Because the plaintiff often grants a defendant an extension of time within which to answer, a court cannot even presume that service of process must have occurred within the twenty-day period preceding the filing of a party's answer. Jenkins did not present the district court with anything showing that the defendants were not timely served. He merely alleged in his motion, Jurisdiction was not obtained by KEB therefore, that cause of action must be dismiss [sic] as a matter of law, without prejudice, for failure to comply with Idaho Rules [sic] of Civil Procedures [sic], Rule 4(a)(2). There is nothing in the record indicating that the district court erred in denying Jenkins's motion.