FREEMAN et al v. MEDSTAR HEALTH INC. et al

Filing 94

MEMORANDUM OPINION and ORDER denying without prejudice Defendants' 87 Motion to Partially Dismiss Plaintiffs' Fourth Amended Complaint for Lack of Service (with respect to Good Samaritan Hospital). Service due by 4/18/2016. The Clerk of Court shall issue the summons requested (ECF No. 88 ) forthwith. See document for further details. Signed by Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly on 3/31/2016. (lcckk2)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
DANIELLE FREEMAN, et al.,
Plaintiffs
v.

Civil Action No. 14-628 (CKK)

MEDSTAR HEALTH INC., et al.,
Defendants
MEMORANDUM OPINION and ORDER
(March 31, 2016)
Before the Court is Defendants’ [87] Motion to Partially Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Fourth
Amended Complaint for Lack of Service. Defendants seek for all claims against Good
Samaritan Hospital to be dismissed in light of Plaintiffs’ failure to serve the Fourth
Amended Complaint within the allowable time frame under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 4(m). That motion is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
Rule 4(m), as amended on December 1, 2015, provides as follows:
If a defendant is not served within 90 days after the complaint is filed, 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.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). 1
On October 8, 2015, the Court granted leave for the filing of the Fourth Amended
Complaint, which includes individual claims against Good Samaritan Hospital. The Court
ordered Plaintiffs to promptly serve the Fourth Amended Complaint on Good Samaritan
Hospital. See Minute Order dated October 8, 2015. Notwithstanding the timeline set by
Rule 4(m) and the Court’s instruction to promptly serve that defendant, Plaintiffs did not
attempt to serve Good Samaritan Hospital until after Defendants filed the pending motion
to dismiss—159 days after the Court allowed the amended complaint to be filed. It was
not until two days after Defendants filed the pending motion that Plaintiffs even
requested a summons to be issued by the Clerk of the Court.
Complying with this Court’s Orders and the governing rules is essential. Failing to do
so is simply unacceptable, and Plaintiffs have provided no excuse for their lack of
compliance with the applicable requirements.

1

Prior to the 2015 amendments, Rule 4(m) allowed 120 days for service. That distinction
is of no moment to the Court’s resolution of the pending motion.
1

That said, in this instance, the Court will not visits the sins of the lawyers on the
clients. Therefore, under the Court’s discretion under Rule 4(m), the Court determines it
is proper to extend the time to serve Good Samaritan Hospital rather than dismissing the
claims against that defendant. Dismissing those claims now would not be in the interest
of justice.
While the Court denies the motion to dismiss notwithstanding Plaintiffs’ counsel’s
failures in these circumstances, the parties shall not assume the Court will excuse
counsel’s failures at any point in the future. The Court fully expects all parties and their
attorneys to closely monitor deadlines in this case in order to comply with them, and the
Court expects full compliance with all applicable rules and orders of this Court—with no
exceptions.
For all of these reasons, it is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiffs shall serve the Fourth
Amended Complaint on Good Samaritan Hospital and file proof of service on the docket
by no later than APRIL 18, 2016. If they do not do so, the Court will dismiss the claims
against Good Samaritan Hospital at that time.
It is further ORDERED that Defendants’ [87] Motion to Partially Dismiss is
DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
It is further ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall issue forthwith a summons
in response to Plaintiffs’ [88] Request for Summons to Issue.
SO ORDERED.
/s/
COLLEEN KOLLAR-KOTELLY
United States District Judge

2