Severson v. DUPI Underwriting Agencies, B.V. of Rotterdam Netherlands
- 3:24-cv-07914
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Severson v. DUPI Underwriting Agencies, Judge the court ordered proof of service by March 10, 2025, after the foreign defendant remained unserved.
Michael Severson must file proof of service by March 10, 2025. DUPI Underwriting Agencies, B.V. remains the unserved defendant, and the case has an initial case-management conference scheduled for July 10, 2025.
What happened
Michael Severson sued DUPI Underwriting Agencies, B.V., a foreign corporation, but had not served it 93 days after filing the complaint. Severson told the court he was communicating with the company and discussing settlement.
The court explained that service on a foreign corporation may follow the Hague Service Convention and is not subject to Rule 4(m)'s 90-day deadline in the same way as ordinary service. But the court said plaintiffs do not have unlimited time to serve foreign defendants.
The court ordered Severson to file proof of service by March 10, 2025, and set an initial case-management conference for July 10, 2025. The opinion does not identify the judge by name.
The detailed version
- Severson v. DUPI Underwriting Agencies, B.V. of Rotterdam Netherlands · No. 3:24-cv-07914
- Feb. 14, 2025
Background
Michael Severson filed a complaint against DUPI Underwriting Agencies, B.V. on November 12, 2024. The opinion describes DUPI as a foreign corporation located in Rotterdam, Netherlands. As of February 13, 2025, Severson had not served DUPI for 93 days. Severson indicated that he had been in contact with DUPI and was conducting settlement discussions.
Service requirements
The court explained that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) generally requires service of process within 90 days after a complaint is filed. If service is not completed within that period, Rule 4(m) generally requires the court either to dismiss the action without prejudice against the defendant or to order service within a specified time. The rule excludes service in a foreign country under Rule 4(f), Rule 4(h)(2), or Rule 4(j)(1) from that 90-day limit. The court also noted that service on a foreign corporation may involve the Hague Service Convention.
The court stated that the absence of a specific deadline under Rule 4(f) does not give a plaintiff unlimited time to serve a foreign defendant. The court may set a reasonable deadline under its authority to manage its docket, and failure to meet a court-ordered service deadline may support dismissal for failure to prosecute under Rule 41(b).
Order
The court ordered Severson to file proof of service no later than March 10, 2025. It also set an initial case-management conference for July 10, 2025, at 2:00 p.m. The opinion does not state that the action was dismissed or identify the judge by name.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.