Opinion ID: 171316
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: dismissal of sbc

Text: A plaintiff must serve a defendant with a summons and a copy of the complaint within 120 days after the filing of the complaint. Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(m). If service is not made within 120 days, the court: on motion or on its own after notice to the plaintiff[,] must dismiss the action without prejudice against that defendant or order that service be made within a specified time. But if the plaintiff shows good cause for the failure, the court must extend the time for service for an appropriate period. Id. We review for abuse of discretion the district court's dismissal of a defendant for improper service. See Scott v. Hern, 216 F.3d 897, 912 (10th Cir.2000). Here, the district court sua sponte dismissed SBC for insufficient service of process and was therefore required to give prior notice to the plaintiff under Rule 4(m). [7] Among other things, the notice requirement affords the plaintiff the opportunity to show good cause for improper service. See Espinoza v. United States, 52 F.3d 838, 841 (10th Cir.1995) (The preliminary inquiry to be made under Rule 4(m) is whether the plaintiff has shown good cause for the failure to timely effect service.). If good cause is shown, the plaintiff is entitled to a mandatory extension of time. If the plaintiff fails to show good cause, the district court must still consider whether a permissive extension of time may be warranted. Id. Indeed, a court must expressly consider a plaintiff's argument regarding good cause, because [w]ithout anything in the record to indicate how the district court made its determination with respect to the good cause exception . . . appellate review is impossible. ARW Exploration Corp. v. Aguirre, 45 F.3d 1455, 1459 (10th Cir.1995). In this case the district court did not notify the plaintiffs of its intention to dismiss SBC for improper service. In its order of dismissal, the district court also concluded, without explanation, that the plaintiffs had not served SBC and had not shown good cause regarding their failure to do so. Because the district court did not give the plaintiffs an opportunity to argue that they did, in fact, serve SBC or that they had good cause not to, the district court abused its discretion in sua sponte dismissing SBC.