Schwartz Foundation v. Schwartz
- Jacquelyn Corley
- 3:23-cv-06086
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Schwartz Foundation v. Schwartz, Judge Corley dismissed the case without prejudice because plaintiffs failed to serve Margot D Schwartz.
Schwartz Foundation and the other plaintiffs, whose action against Margot D Schwartz was dismissed without prejudice; Margot D Schwartz had not been served.
What happened
In Schwartz Foundation v. Schwartz, the plaintiffs filed the action on November 22, 2023, but did not serve Margot D Schwartz with the complaint and summons within the required 90 days.
The plaintiffs first said service had been completed, then acknowledged that Margot D Schwartz had not been served and planned to seek permission for service by publication. The court found that the plaintiffs had missed extended deadlines and had not shown a sufficient reason for failing to complete service.
Judge Jacquelyn Corley dismissed the action without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) for failure to serve. The ruling did not decide the underlying claims.
The detailed version
- Schwartz Foundation v. Schwartz · No. 3:23-cv-06086
- Jacquelyn Corley
- May 15, 2024
Background
Schwartz Foundation and the other plaintiffs filed the action on November 22, 2023. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4 generally required them to serve Margot D Schwartz with the complaint and summons within 90 days.
The plaintiffs did not complete service by that deadline. The court ordered them to explain why the case should not be dismissed without prejudice for failure to serve. The plaintiffs responded that they believed service had been completed under California law. The court then gave them another deadline to file proof of service.
On that deadline, the plaintiffs filed a corrected declaration acknowledging that Margot D Schwartz had not been served. They stated that they intended to seek permission to serve her by publication. The court found that the plaintiffs had twice missed extended deadlines to file proof of service and had not provided evidence supporting their service attempts or an adequate explanation for why service had failed.
Court’s Reasoning
The court explained that proper service is required for the court to exercise personal jurisdiction over a defendant. Under Rule 4(m), when a defendant is not served within 90 days, the court must dismiss the action without prejudice or order service within a specified time.
The court rejected the plaintiffs’ explanation that they thought certified-mail attempts had succeeded. It also rejected their assertion that two addresses were too remote to be reached by a process server, stating that a map undermined that characterization. The court concluded that the plaintiffs’ failure to serve lacked good cause.
Disposition
Judge Jacquelyn Corley DISMISSED without prejudice the action for failure to serve under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m). The opinion does not decide the merits of the plaintiffs’ underlying claims.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.