De Jesus-Rivera v. Abbott Laboratories et al

Filing 17

ORDER denying 9 Motion to Dismiss, but we ORDER Plaintiff to perfect service of process in accordance with Rule 4(h) on or before July 23, 2010. Service of Process Deadline due by 7/23/2010. Signed by Chief Judge Jose A Fuste on 7/8/2010. (mrj)

De Jesus-Rivera v. Abbott Laboratories et al

Doc. 17

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

U N IT E D STATES DISTRICT COURT D IS T R IC T OF PUERTO RICO G L O R IA DE JESUS­RIVERA, Plaintiff, v. A B B O T T LABORATORIES; ABBOTT L A B O R A T O R IE S PUERTO RICO, INC., Defendants.

C iv il No. 10-1144 (JAF)

ORDER P la in tif f sues under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e to e-17, a lle g in g discrimination on the basis of sex and retaliation for her opposition to that d isc rim in a tio n . (Docket No. 1.) Defendant Abbott Laboratories ("Movant") moves to dismiss u n d e r Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(5) for insufficient service of process (Docket N o . 9), and Plaintiff opposes (Docket No. 16). M o v a n t claims that Plaintiff served it via an employee of codefendant Abbott L a b o ra to rie s Puerto Rico, Inc. ("ALPR"), whom Movant claims is not authorized to receive s e rv ic e on its behalf, and that Plaintiff, therefore, failed to perfect service as required by Federal R u le of Civil Procedure 4(h). (Docket No. 9.) Plaintiff responds that (1) Movant's acceptance o f this very service in other cases precludes its argument in this case; and (2) Movant and ALPR s h o u ld be treated as one entity for the purpose of service of process. (Docket No. 16.) Plaintiff c ite s no legal authority to support these assertions. (Id.) She also states that she is amenable to perfecting service in accordance with Rule 4(h). (Id. at 1.)

Dockets.Justia.com

Civil No. 10-1144 (JAF) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

-2 -

W e are not aware of, nor does Plaintiff provide, any authority finding that Plaintiff's m e th o d of service complies with Rule 4(h). We, therefore, conclude that service of process was in su f f i c i e n t in this case. Pursuant to our discretion under Rule 4(m), we DENY Movant's m o tio n to dismiss (Docket No. 9), but we ORDER Plaintiff to perfect service of process in a c c o rd a n c e with Rule 4(h) on or before July 23, 2010. I T IS SO ORDERED. S a n Juan, Puerto Rico, this 8 th day of July, 2010. s/José Antonio Fusté JOSE ANTONIO FUSTE Chief U.S. District Judge