Shipco Transport, Inc. v. All Round Express, Inc.

Background

Shipco Transport, Inc. brought a maritime action alleging that Rost International, Inc., Arrogant Steel, LLC, Golden Voyage Plastics, Inc., and All Round Express, Inc. breached a bill of lading. Shipco filed the complaint on February 17, 2023, and the Clerk issued summonses on February 21, 2023.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) generally requires a plaintiff to serve the summons and complaint within 90 days after filing the complaint. None of the defendants had been served by that deadline. In October 2023, the court ordered Shipco to explain the failure. Shipco stated that three defendants could not be served at their initial addresses, that the address for All Round Express might be incorrect, and that at least part of the delay resulted from health issues affecting its attorney. Shipco asked for additional time to serve the defendants.

Court’s analysis

The court held that Shipco had not shown “good cause,” meaning exceptional circumstances beyond the plaintiff’s control that justified extending the service deadline. The court noted that Shipco did not show that it had tried again to serve Rost, Arrogant Steel, or Golden Voyage Plastics, and did not identify any attempt to serve All Round Express within the 90-day period. The court also found that Shipco’s general reference to health issues did not explain why service could not have been completed or help obtained during the deadline.

The court separately considered whether to grant a discretionary extension even without good cause. It found that all four relevant factors favored the defendants: Shipco did not address whether the statute of limitations would prevent refiling; the docket showed no evidence that the defendants had actual notice of the claims; there was no indication that any defendant concealed a service defect; and delaying service would undermine Rule 4(m)’s purpose of promoting timely litigation. The court also noted that Shipco waited more than five months after the service deadline to request an extension and still had not filed proof of service or explained when service would occur.

Disposition

Judge Jennifer H. Rearden denied Shipco’s motion for additional time to serve the defendants. Pursuant to Rule 4(m), the court dismissed the action without prejudice and directed the Clerk of Court to close the case.