Matthews et al v. Stolier et al
Filing
66
ORDER AND REASONS dismissing Defendant, CNA Insurance Company, without prejudice. Signed by Judge Jane Triche Milazzo on 5/6/14.(ecm) Modified document type on 5/7/2014 (ecm).
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
CHARLES MATTHEWS, ET AL
CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS
NO: 13–6638
JACK STOLIER, ET AL
SECTION: "H"(2)
ORDER AND REASONS
The Court addresses sua sponte Plaintiffs' failure to serve Defendant, CNA Insurance
Company. See Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 4(m). For the following reasons, Plaintiffs' claims against
Defendant, CNA Insurance Company, are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiffs filed a petition in Louisiana state court on October 17, 2013 asserting various
claims against several Defendants. On December 12, 2013, the action was removed to this Court.
At the time of removal, Plaintiffs had not effected service on Defendant, CNA Insurance Company
1
("CNA"). Plaintiffs made no attempt to effect service after removal and, on April 17, 2014 (126
days after removal), the Court ordered Plaintiffs to show cause, no later than May 8, 2014, as to
why CNA had not been served. On April 29, 2014, Plaintiffs responded to the show cause order.
The Court finds that Plaintiffs have failed to show good cause for their failure to timely serve CNA.
Therefore, CNA is dismissed without prejudice.
LEGAL STANDARD
"If a defendant is not served within 120 days after the complaint is filed, the court . . . must
dismiss the action without prejudice against that defendant or order that service be made within
a specified time." Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). "But if the plaintiff shows good cause for the failure, the
court must extend the time for service for an appropriate period." Id. The court has discretion to
extend the time for service even in the absence of good cause shown. Thompson v. Brown, 91 F.3d
20, 21 (5th Cir. 1996).
In considering whether to extend the time for service, courts employ a two‐step process.
"[The court] must first determine whether good cause exists. If good cause is present, the district
court must extend time for service. If good cause does not exist, the court may, in its discretion,
decide whether to dismiss the case without prejudice or extend time for service." Id. The Fifth
Circuit has explained that "good cause" is generally equated with "excusable neglect." McDonald
v. U.S., 898 F.2d 466, 467 (5th Cir. 1990). However, "inadvertence or mistake of counsel or
2
ignorance of the rules usually does not suffice, and [] some showing of good faith and a reasonable
basis for noncompliance within the time specified is necessary to show good cause." Id.
LAW AND ANALYSIS
As explained above, where a plaintiff has failed to effect service within 120 days after the
complaint is filed, the Court should ordinarily dismiss the unserved defendants without prejudice.
Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 4(m). However, a plaintiff can escape dismissal if he can show good cause for his
failure to effect service. The primary question before the Court is whether Plaintiffs have shown
good cause for failure to timely serve CNA. The Court concludes that they have not.
In response to this Court's show‐cause order, Plaintiffs offered an explanation for their
failure to serve CNA. Plaintiffs explain that, sometime after the suit was filed, a representative of
CNA became aware of the suit and contacted Plaintiff counsel. The CNA representative explained
to Plaintiff counsel that CNA did not insure any defendants in this lawsuit and inquired as to
whether Plaintiffs would be willing to voluntarily dismiss CNA. Plaintiff counsel has not
represented to the Court that she doubts the veracity of CNA's representation. Rather, she has
indicated that she prefers to join the correct insurers before dismissing CNA. Counsel notes that
she has served interrogatories on Defendants, which request information regarding the correct
identity of Defendants' insurers. However, Plaintiff Counsel correctly notes that Defendants are
not yet obligated to respond to Plaintiffs' discovery because there are pending Motions to Dismiss.
3
Counsel for Plaintiff asks the Court to extend the time to serve CNA until after Defendants answer
the interrogatories, at which time she will likely voluntarily dismiss CNA.
Plaintiffs' explanation does not show good cause for failing to serve CNA. Good cause is
generally equated with excusable neglect. McDonald, 898 F.2d at 467. However, Plaintiffs have
not neglected to serve CNA, they have chosen not to attempt service. This is not a choice which
is afforded to Plaintiffs by the Rules of Civil Procedure. Furthermore, since it appears at this time
that Plaintiffs lack a cause of action against CNA, the Court chooses not to exercise its discretion
to extend the time for service. Therefore, because Plaintiffs have failed to show good cause, the
Court is required to dismiss CNA.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Defendant, CNA Insurance Company, is DISMISSED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 6th day of May, 2014.
____________________________
JANE TRICHE MILAZZO
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
4
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?