Opinion ID: 1966383
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: analysis

Text: Rule 4( l ) requires service of the summons and complaint to occur within 120 days after commencement of the action. [3] By a plain reading of the rule, if service is not made within 120 days the case shall be dismissed, unless good cause can be shown for why service was not made within that period. The rule imposes the obligation on plaintiff's counsel to exercise reasonable diligence to effectuate service promptly. Super.R.Civ.P. 4 Committee Notes. If good cause cannot be shown, Rule 4( l ) requires dismissal, allowing the motion justice no discretion to do anything other than to dismiss the case without prejudice. In our review of the proper application of Rule 4( l ), we reach the same conclusion as the second motion justiceunless plaintiff can show good cause, his complaint must be dismissed for failing to make service within 120 days. The plaintiff contends, however, that the motion justice abused his discretion by not finding good cause. He argues that he made reasonable, and diligent efforts to serve defendants under the circumstances. He further avers that he did not sleep on his rights, nor have defendants alleged that they somehow were prejudiced by the delay. The plaintiff also ascribes reversible error to the fact that the second motion justice did not even consider the possibility that defendants purposely were avoiding service, having received an early warning of the lawsuit through their insurance agent. The plaintiff misconceives the effect of Rule 4( l ). Rule 4( l ) places the onus of showing good cause why service was not timely made squarely on the party on whose behalf such service was required   . The defending party need not show any prejudice to be entitled to the benefits of a dismissal under Rule 4( l ). Norcliffe v. Resnick, 694 A.2d 1210, 1211 (R.I.1997). Moreover, we reject the notion that the mere return of certified mail marked unclaimed suggests that the addressee was evading service. There may be many reasons why a potential defendant is unable to claim a certified letter. The burden is on plaintiff to show good cause; simply raising a possibility is not sufficient. The plaintiff also faults the second motion justice for failing to find explicitly that good cause had not been shown. Although it is true that the motion justice did not articulate that plaintiff had not shown good cause, it is clear from the transcript that he properly considered plaintiff's efforts, or lack thereof, to effectuate service On two occasions he asked plaintiff's counsel so what's the good cause? and what's the good cause why such service was not made within 120 days? In making his ruling, the second motion justice said: Here's what I find unreasonable. He then elaborated that suit was filed in October, but service was not attempted until January. The second motion justice noted that service of process was not refused but unclaimed and returned, and that it would have been possible for plaintiff under the rules to come back to court and ask for more time. See, e.g., Rule 6(b). We agree with the second motion justice's analysis and are satisfied that he did not abuse his discretion by dismissing the action because, in his judgment, plaintiff had failed to demonstrate good cause.