Farm Bureau Property & Casualty Insurance Company v. Hewlett-Packard Company et al

Filing 20

ORDER denying 7 Motion to Dismiss. Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 5/15/2015.(DGC, nvo)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

Farm Bureau Property & Casualty Insurance
Company,

10

Plaintiff,

11
12
13

No. CV-15-00446-PHX-DGC
ORDER

v.
Hewlett-Packard Company, et al.,
Defendants.

14
15

Plaintiff Farm Bureau Property & Casualty Insurance Company (“Farm Bureau”)

16

filed this lawsuit in state court on October 7, 2014. Doc. 1-1 at 2. On February 13, 2015,

17

Farm Bureau served process by certified mail on Defendant Hewlett-Packard Company.

18

Doc. 1-1 at 28. Hewlett-Packard removed the case to this Court, and has filed a motion

19

to dismiss for insufficient service of process. Doc. 7. The Court will deny the motion.

20

II.

Legal Standard.

21

“A federal court does not have jurisdiction over a defendant unless the defendant

22

has been served properly[.]” Direct Mail Specialists, Inc. v. Eclat Computerized Techs.,

23

Inc., 840 F.2d 685, 688 (9th Cir. 1988). A defendant may challenge the sufficiency of

24

service of process under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(5). In cases removed to

25

federal court from state court, “[t]he issue of the sufficiency of service of process prior to

26

removal is strictly a state law issue[.]” Lee v. City of Beaumont, 12 F.3d 933, 936-37 (9th

27

Cir. 1993), overruled on other grounds by Cal. Dep’t of Water Res. v. Powerex Corp.,

28

533 F.3d 1087 (9th Cir. 2008); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1448. On a motion to dismiss for

1

insufficient service of process, a federal court applies state law when the service occurred

2

before removal, but was defective for reasons such as being past a state-law deadline.

3

See Beecher v. Wallace, 381 F.2d 372, 373 (9th Cir. 1967); see also Wallace v. Microsoft

4

Corp., 596 F.3d 703, 706-07 (10th Cir. 2010); Romo v. Gulf Stream Coach, Inc., 250

5

F.3d 1119, 1122-23 (7th Cir. 2001).

6

III.

Analysis.

7

Hewlett-Packard first argues that Farm Bureau’s service of process was defective

8

because it was completed 129 days after Farm Bureau filed its complaint. Under the

9

Arizona rules,

10

If service of the summons and complaint is not made upon a defendant
within 120 days after the filing of the complaint, the court . . . shall dismiss
the action without prejudice as to that defendant or direct that service be
effected within a specified time; provided that if the plaintiff shows good
cause for the failure, the court shall extend the time for service for an
appropriate period.

11
12
13
14

Ariz. R. Civ. P. 4(i). Under this rule, a court must extend the time for service upon a

15

showing of good cause, and may in its discretion extend the time for service absent a

16

showing of good cause. Maher v. Urman, 124 P.3d 770, 774 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2005). “In

17

order to show good cause to extend time for service, a plaintiff must demonstrate he or

18

she exercised due diligence in trying to serve the defendant.” Id. at 775 (citing Snow v.

19

Steele, 588 P.2d 824, 825 (Ariz. 1978)).

20

An extension of time for service of process is appropriate here. Farm Bureau has

21

produced e-mails showing that the parties’ lawyers had discussed the service of process

22

issue.

23

lawyer whether he could accept service. Doc. 9-2 at 2. Hewlett Packard’s lawyer

24

responded “Let me ask HP and I will get back to you” (Doc. 9-3 at 2), and then never

25

followed up on the issue. Farm Bureau argues that it reasonably relied on Hewlett-

26

Packard’s representation and therefore excusably failed to serve process within the 120-

27

day deadline. Without deciding whether Farm Bureau has shown good cause for an

28

extension, the Court finds that a discretionary extension is appropriate.

Before filing the complaint, Farm Bureau’s lawyer asked Hewlett-Packard’s

-2-

Service of

1

process was only nine days late, Hewlett-Packard was well aware of the lawsuit, and

2

Farm Bureau has provided some explanation for its tardiness.1

3

Hewlett-Packard next argues that Farm Bureau’s method of service was

4

ineffective.

5

complaint to Hewlett-Packard’s statutory agent in Delaware. Doc. 1-1 at 24-28. The

6

documents were sent by certified mail and Hewlett-Packard’s statutory agent signed and

7

returned a receipt. Id. This method of service is permitted by the Arizona rules:

8
9
10
11
12
13
14

Farm Bureau served Hewlett-Packard by sending a summons and the

When the whereabouts of a party outside the state is known, service may be
made by depositing the summons and a copy of the pleading being served
in the post office, postage prepaid, to be sent to the person to be served by
any form of mail requiring a signed and returned receipt. Service by mail
pursuant to this subpart and the return thereof may be made by the party
procuring service or by that party’s attorney. Upon return through the post
office of the signed receipt, the serving party shall file an affidavit with the
court stating (1) that the party being served is known to be located outside
the state, (2) that the summons and a copy of the pleading were dispatched
to the party being served; (3) that such papers were in fact received by the
party as evidence by the receipt, a copy of which shall be attached to the
affidavit; and (4) the date of receipt by the party being served and the date
of the return of the receipt to the sender.

15
16

Ariz. R. Civ. P. 4.2(c). Farm Bureau’s service by certified mail complied with this rule.

17

See Doc. 1-1 at 24-28.

18

Relying on Rule 4.1(i), Hewlett-Packard argues that when a foreign corporation

19

has a statutory agent in Arizona, service of process may not be made on a statutory agent

20

outside of Arizona. Under Rule 4.1(i), service of process on a domestic or foreign

21

corporation “shall be effected by delivering a copy of the summons and of the pleading to

22

a partner, an officer, a managing or general agent, or to any other agent authorized by

23

appointment or by law to receive service of process[.]” Ariz. R. Civ. P. 4.1(i). Hewlett-

24

Packard argues that because Rule 4.1 is under the heading “Service of Process Within

25

Arizona,” the Court should construe Rule 4.1(i) as requiring service on a statutory agent

26
1

27
28

The Court is unaware of an Arizona case that addresses whether the 120-day
deadline may be extended retroactively. Federal courts have found that the federal
deadline may be so extended. Mann v. Am. Airlines, 324 F.3d 1088, 1090 (9th Cir.
2003). Because the Arizona Rule is substantively identical to the federal rule, the Court
finds that the Arizona deadline may be extended retroactively.
-3-

1

in Arizona when such an agent exists.

2

The Court finds Hewlett-Packard’s argument unconvincing. The rule does not say

3

that if a corporation has a statutory agent in Arizona, a party may not serve process on a

4

statutory agent outside of Arizona. Furthermore, Rule 4.2(c) explicitly allows service by

5

certified mail on a statutory agent in another state, and the Court will not read the two

6

rules as being in conflict. See State v. Razo, 988 P.2d 1119, 1120 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1999)

7

(“We must endeavor . . . to construe apparently conflicting statutes in a way that gives

8

effect to all.”). The Court finds that Farm Bureau’s service of process by certified mail

9

under Rule 4.2(c) was appropriate. See also Barlage v. Valentine, 110 P.3d 371, 377-78

10

(Ariz. Ct. App. 2005) (finding that this method of service satisfied due process).2

11

IT IS ORDERED that Defendant Hewlett-Packard’s motion to dismiss (Doc. 7) is

12

denied. The deadline for service on Hewlett-Packard is retroactively extended, and Farm

13

Bureau’s service of process on February 13, 2015 (Doc. 1-1 at 24-28) satisfies the

14

service-of-process requirement.

15

Dated this 15th day of May, 2015.

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2

Hewlett-Packard also argues that service of process by certified mail is not a
valid method of service. The cases that Hewlett-Packard cites, however, do not stand for
this broad proposition. Rather, they simply hold that in certain circumstances under
federal or local rules, service by certified mail is ineffective.
-4-