Primacy Engineering, Inc. v. San Engineering et al

Filing 22

ORDER EXTENDING time limit to serve Chi Won Lee and SAN Engineering to and including October 31, 2018. Signed by Judge Robert Pitman. (lt)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AUSTIN DIVISION
PRIMACY ENGINEERING, INC.,
Plaintiff,
v.
SAN ENGINEERING, CHI WON LEE,
and JK OCEANICS, LLC,
Defendants.

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

1:18-CV-129-RP

ORDER
Plaintiff Primacy Engineering, Inc. (“Primacy”) filed its complaint on February 9, 2018.
(Dkt. 1). Primacy named SAN Engineering (“SAN”), Chi Won Lee (“Lee”), and JK Oceanics, LLC
(“JK Oceanics”) as defendants. To date, only JK Oceanics has been served.
“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.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). On June
20, 2018, the Court ordered Primacy to show cause as to why it had not served Lee or SAN. (Dkt.
12). Primacy responded by informing the Court that SAN is a Korean company with no offices in
the United States and that Lee is a Korean citizen who lives in Korea. (Schachter Aff., Dkt. 13-1, at
1). Primacy’s initial efforts to contact SAN and Lee’s attorneys were unsuccessful; Primacy is now
attempting to serve process under the Hague Convention, which it estimates will take 3 to 4 months.
(Id.).
Under Rule 4(m), the district court has two choices when plaintiff fails to serve defendant
within a 90-day period: either “dismiss the action without prejudice . . . or order that service be made
within a specified time.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). If a plaintiff “shows good cause for the failure, the
court must extend the time for service for an appropriate period.” Id. The Court finds that Lee and
1

SAN’s location outside of the United States is good cause for Primacy’s failure to serve them within
90 days of filing its complaint. The Court must therefore extend Primacy’s time limit for service for
an appropriate period. This action has been pending for only five months. Service of process under
the Hague Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil and
Commercial Matters often takes considerable time. See L.K. ex rel. Yarborough v. Mazda Motor Corp.,
No. CIV A 3:09-CV-469-M, 2009 WL 1033334, at *2 (N.D. Tex. Apr. 15, 2009) (allowing sixteen
weeks for service under the Hague Convention). The Court finds that four months is an appropriate
period by which to extend Primacy’s deadline to serve Lee and SAN.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Primacy’s time limit to serve Lee and SAN is extended
to and includes October 31, 2018.
SIGNED on July 11, 2018.

_____________________________________
ROBERT PITMAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2