From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Mann v. American Airlines

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Apr 1, 2003
324 F.3d 1088 (9th Cir. 2003)

Summary

holding that district court may, under the broad discretion granted by FED. R. CIV. P. 4(m), extend time for service retroactively after the 120-day service period has expired

Summary of this case from Murschel v. Paramo

Opinion

No. 01-35803.

Argued and Submitted March 5, 2003.

Filed April 1, 2003.

Douglas R. Cloud, Tacoma, WA, for appellant Roderick C. Mann.

Kenneth R. O'Brien and Brandon Blevans, Littler Mendelson, Sacramento, CA, for appellee American Airlines, Inc.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington; Franklin D. Burgess, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CV-00-05641-FDB.

Before: REINHARDT, W. FLETCHER, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.


Plaintiff-Appellant Roderick C. Mann filed a civil action within the governing statute of limitations but then did not serve process within 120 days of filing, as required (absent time extension) by Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(m). Mann then moved for an extension of time to serve Defendant-Appellee American Airlines, was granted additional time by the district court, and effected service within the judicially extended time. We consider (1) whether the failure to serve process within the initial 120-day period causes the statute of limitations to run again and (2) whether the district court may extend the time to serve process, under Rule 4(m), after the 120 days have expired when the statute of limitations would otherwise bar the refiling of the suit if the district court had declined extension of time and had dismissed the suit.

I

Mann received a "right-to-sue" letter from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) on August 2, 2000, and filed a pro se complaint in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington eighty-nine days later on October 30, 2000. His complaint alleged a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12101. The original filing of this complaint was within the 90-day statute of limitations period set forth in 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1).

Because Mann did not serve the complaint on Defendant Appellee American Airlines within the 120-day period required by Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(m), the district court on March 27, 2001, issued an "Order to Show Cause Why Case Should Not Be Dismissed." Mann retained counsel, filed a Response to the Order to Show Cause through counsel, and moved for extension of time to serve the complaint. By minute order dated May 8, 2001, the district court granted the motion for extension, giving Mann until June 8, 2001, to complete service.

On May 30, 2001, Mann filed an amended complaint and the district court issued a summons. On June 4, 2001, Mann served on Defendant American Airlines the original complaint, the amended complaint, the original summons, and the subsequent summons.

American Airlines later moved to dismiss pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(5) and (b)(6), alleging inadequate and untimely service of process and lack of personal jurisdiction. The district court granted the motion and dismissed the case with prejudice, apparently believing that compliance with the statute of limitations as provided by 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1) is linked to service of process within the 120-day period set out in Rule 4(m):

In this case, plaintiff's original complaint was timely filed, on the 89th day of the 90 day period. Filing a complaint gives a plaintiff 120 days to complete service of process according to Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(m). In this case plaintiff failed to timely serve and ex parte moved the court for an extension of time to complete service, which the court granted. While the court has discretion with regards to service of process, the court does not have the power to alter the 90 day statute of limitations. Wilson v. Grumman Ohio Corp., 815 F.2d 26, 27 (6th Cir. 1987). Plaintiff's failure to file suit against American [Airlines] within the 90 day period mandated by the ADA requires the court to dismiss.

(Emphasis added.) Mann appeals.

II

The correctness of the district court's dismissal on statute of limitations grounds is a question of law reviewed de novo. See Underwood Cotton Co., Inc. v. Hyundai Merch. Marine (Am.), Inc., 288 F.3d 405, 407 (9th Cir. 2002). The interpretation of a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure is also a question of law reviewed de novo. See United States v. Foster, 227 F.3d 1096, 1099 (9th Cir. 2000).

III

This appeal requires resolution of two issues. First, we address whether Mann's failure to serve process within the initial 120-day period prescribed by Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(m) caused the statute of limitations to start to run again. We conclude that it did not. Once a complaint is filed, the statute of limitations is tolled unless and until the district court dismisses the action. See 4 Charles A. Wright and Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure: Civil 3d § 1053 (3d ed. 2002).

Neither party disputes that Mann filed his complaint within the 90-day statute of limitations. And, neither party disputes that the statute of limitations initially is tolled upon filing of a complaint. See Sain v. City of Bend, 309 F.3d 1134, 1138 (9th Cir. 2002).

Second, we address whether the district court had the discretion to extend the time to serve process even after the 120-day period had expired. We conclude that it did. Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(m) provides:

If service of the summons and complaint is not made upon a defendant within 120 days after the filing of the complaint, the court, upon motion or on its own initiative after notice to the plaintiff, 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.

Rule 4(m) replaced former Rule 4(j) in the 1993 amendments. The current rule requires a district court to grant an extension of time if good cause is shown and permits the district court to grant such an extension even absent good cause. Henderson v. United States, 517 U.S. 654, 662, 116 S.Ct. 1638, 134 L.Ed.2d 880 (1996). This differs from former Rule 4(j), which did not permit extensions absent good cause. Id. at 661-62, 116 S.Ct. 1638.

On its face, Rule 4(m) does not tie the hands of the district court after the 120-day period has expired. Rather, Rule 4(m) explicitly permits a district court to grant an extension of time to serve the complaint after that 120-day period. Cf. Henderson v. United States, 517 U.S. 654, 661, 116 S.Ct. 1638, 134 L.Ed.2d 880 (1996) (concluding that "the 120-day provision operates not as an outer limit subject to reduction, but as an irreducible allowance").

The district court's discretion is not diminished when the statute of limitations would bar re-filing of the suit if the district court decided to dismiss the case instead of grant an extension. To the contrary, the advisory committee notes explicitly contemplate that a district court might use its discretion to grant an extension in that very situation: "Relief may be justified, for example, if the applicable statute of limitations would bar the re-filed action." Fed.R.Civ.P. 4, Advisory Committee Note to 1993 Amendments, Subdivision (m). See also De Tie v. Orange Cty., 152 F.3d 1109, 1111 n. 5 (9th Cir. 1998) (recognizing that an extension may be warranted if the statute of limitations has run).

Here, even though the district court properly used its discretion to extend the time for Mann to serve process, the district court later dismissed the action after concluding the statute of limitations had not been satisfied. As there was no other apparent basis, we must assume that the district court believed that the statute of limitations began to run upon Mann's failure to serve process within the 120-day period. But the failure to serve process within Rule 4(m)'s 120-day period does not affect the tolling of the statute of limitations unless the failure to serve process causes the district court to dismiss the action. Cf. Henderson, 517 U.S. at 656, 116 S.Ct. 1638 (holding that once a federal suit is commenced in compliance with the governing statute of limitations, "the manner and timing of serving process are generally nonjurisdictional matters of 'procedure'"); Pardazi v. Cullman Med. Ctr., 896 F.2d 1313, 1315-16 (11th Cir. 1990) (holding that service of process requirements are not bound up with the statute of limitations under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1)). The district court did not dismiss Mann's action but rather extended the 120 day service of process period, a decision perfectly within its discretion.

The district court's reliance on Wilson v. Grumman Ohio Corp., 815 F.2d 26 (6th Cir. 1987), is misplaced in part because that case concerned the re filing of a complaint after it had already been dismissed by the district court for failure to prosecute.

We reject Defendant's claims that the grant of a 30-day extension was prejudicial.

Having concluded that the district court's dismissal of this case was error, we reverse and remand for further proceedings.

REVERSED and REMANDED.


Summaries of

Mann v. American Airlines

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Apr 1, 2003
324 F.3d 1088 (9th Cir. 2003)

holding that district court may, under the broad discretion granted by FED. R. CIV. P. 4(m), extend time for service retroactively after the 120-day service period has expired

Summary of this case from Murschel v. Paramo

holding that district court may, under the broad discretion granted by FED. R. CIV. P. 4(m), extend time for service retroactively after the 120-day service period has expired

Summary of this case from Armenta v. Paramo

holding that the district court may, under the broad discretion granted by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m), extend time for service retroactively after the service period has expired

Summary of this case from Millare v. Stratton

holding that district court may, under the broad discretion granted by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m), extend time for service retroactively after the service period has expired

Summary of this case from Carson v. Martinez

holding that district court may, under the broad discretion granted by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m), extend time for service retroactively after the service period has expired

Summary of this case from Lambesis v. Abario

holding that district court may, under the broad discretion granted by FED.R.CIV.P. 4(m), extend time for service retroactively after the 120-day service period has expired

Summary of this case from Avery v. Allamby

holding that district court may, under the broad discretion granted by FED.R.CIV.P. 4(m), extend time for service retroactively after the 120-day service period has expired

Summary of this case from Scofield v. Ball

holding that district court may, under the broad discretion granted by Rule 4(m), extend time for service retroactively after the 120-day service period has expired

Summary of this case from Williams v. Small

holding that a district court can grant an extension under Rule 4(m) even after the 120-day period has expired

Summary of this case from U.S. v. Real Property Residence

holding that district court may, under the broad discretion granted by F ED.R.CIV.P. 4(m), extend time for service retroactively after the 120-day service period has expired

Summary of this case from Escamilla v. Giurbino

finding that the district court had discretion "to extend the time to serve process even after the 120-day period had expired"

Summary of this case from Jones v. Skolnik

affirming extension granted when motion was filed after deadline has passed

Summary of this case from Bd. of Trustees of Leland v. Motorola

explaining that the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting an extension of time for service of process where the statute of limitations would bar re-filing of the suit

Summary of this case from Moser v. Lifewatch Inc.

explaining that the failure to serve process within Rule 4(m)'s 90-day period "does not affect the tolling of the statute of limitations unless the failure to serve process causes the district court to dismiss the action."

Summary of this case from Lee v. Snohomish Cnty.

In Mann, as here, the plaintiff had failed to serve his complaint within 120 days but received additional time under Rule 4(m) to complete service.

Summary of this case from Rogers v. Amalgamated Transit Union

noting that district court has discretion to extend deadline for service of process when the statute of limitations might bar refiling

Summary of this case from Padilla v. Walgreen Hastings Co.

noting that district court has discretion to extend deadline for service of process when the statute of limitations might bar refiling

Summary of this case from Mata v. Anderson

explaining that, if plaintiff has not demonstrated good cause for extension of time, the court may consider the fact that the statute of limitations would bar refiling as a factor in deciding whether to grant extension of time as a matter of court's discretion

Summary of this case from U.S. v. Rodrigue
Case details for

Mann v. American Airlines

Case Details

Full title:Roderick Courtney MANN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. AMERICAN AIRLINES…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: Apr 1, 2003

Citations

324 F.3d 1088 (9th Cir. 2003)

Citing Cases

Efaw v. Williams

We review for abuse of discretion a district court's decision to extend the period for effecting service of…

Wright v. City of Santa Cruz

Even absent a showing of good cause, the court has discretion to extend the time for service. Henderson v.…