Swainson v. Firstmark Services

Background

Raymond Swainson filed a letter responding to the court’s earlier order requiring him to explain service on Firstmark Services and TransUnion, LLC. Swainson said he had confirmed that both defendants were timely served in state court, but he did not submit evidence of service or state whether service was completed before the defendants removed the case to federal court on June 17, 2021.

Swainson also asked for three weeks to serve Firstmark and TransUnion in the federal case because he had not known that federal service was required.

Legal standard

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m), a plaintiff generally must serve a defendant within 90 days after filing the complaint. If service is not completed on time, the court must dismiss the action against that defendant or set a new deadline. The court must extend the deadline when the plaintiff shows good cause, meaning a sufficient reason outside the plaintiff’s control. The court may also grant a discretionary fairness-based extension even without good cause.

Court’s ruling

The court found that Swainson had not shown good cause because he did not establish that circumstances beyond his control caused the failure to complete timely service. The court nevertheless granted his request for an extension as equitable relief, relying especially on indications that TransUnion had actual notice of the claims and Swainson’s status as a person without a lawyer.

Assuming service on Firstmark and TransUnion had not been completed before removal, the court gave Swainson until June 22, 2022, to serve them in the federal case and file proof of service. The court also ordered him to submit the referenced affidavits of service and clarify whether service had been completed before removal. The opinion did not decide whether the earlier service was legally effective.