Kirk Jones v. Kevin Ramos, 12f4th745

Background

Jones, an Uber passenger injured in a 2016 auto accident, filed diversity suit on Oct 26, 2018—two days before the statute of limitations expired.
Plaintiff’s counsel failed to serve the summons and complaint within the 90‑day Rule 4(m) window; the NJ court issued a Rule 4(m) notice warning of dismissal if proof of service was not filed by March 5, 2019.
On March 5, 2019, Jones moved to transfer venue to the Northern District of Indiana; the NJ court granted the transfer and Jones served the venue order but still did not serve the summons and complaint.
Defendants moved to dismiss for failure to timely serve (Rule 12(b)(5)/Rule 4(m)) and as time‑barred; new Indiana counsel began service only after a dismissal motion, and actual service occurred June 21–27, 2019 (≈238–244 days after filing).
The Indiana district court found no good cause, declined to extend the service period under Rule 4(m), and dismissed without prejudice (which effectively barred refile due to the statute of limitations); Rule 60(b) relief was denied.
The Seventh Circuit affirmed, holding the district court did not abuse its discretion and declined to adopt the Fifth Circuit’s heightened standard for near‑expiring statutes of limitations.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether district court abused its discretion in denying an extension of time to serve under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m)	Jones: eventual service, no real prejudice, defendants learned of suit via venue/order and pre‑filing settlement discussions, delay due to counsel change and personal hardship	Defendants: no good cause, plaintiff ignored Rule 4(m) and the court’s dismissal notice, plaintiff failed to diligently pursue service, delay risked loss of evidence and defense	Affirmed: no abuse of discretion; court properly weighed Cardenas factors and dismissed under Rule 4(m)
Whether dismissal without prejudice that effectively bars refiling warrants a heightened standard of review	Jones: when dismissal effectively ends suit (limitations barred), a stricter standard should apply	Defendants: existing Rule 4(m) framework is adequate; plaintiff’s conduct doesn’t warrant relief	Held: Seventh Circuit declines to adopt Fifth Circuit’s heightened standard; ordinary abuse‑of‑discretion review applies
Whether the district court abused discretion in denying Rule 60(b) relief	Jones: additional affidavits showing counsel’s settlement efforts, difficulty finding Indiana counsel, and personal hardships justify reopening	Defendants: delay and lack of diligence persisted; affidavit adds nothing that would change outcome	Held: Denial of Rule 60(b) affirmed; plaintiff failed to meet the extraordinary‑circumstances standard
Sufficiency of the summons to commence the action	Jones implicitly: summons was adequate	Waterhouse argued summons nearly blank and insufficient to commence suit	Not decided on appeal: district court dismissed on Rule 4(m) grounds and appellate court declines to address summons sufficiency

Key Cases Cited

Henderson v. United States, 517 U.S. 654 (1996) (Rule 4(m) extensions reviewed for abuse of discretion)
Cardenas v. City of Chicago, 646 F.3d 1001 (7th Cir. 2011) (non‑exhaustive factors to weigh under Rule 4(m))
Adams v. United States, 911 F.3d 397 (7th Cir. 2018) (abuse‑of‑discretion standard for Rule 60(b) denial)
Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524 (2005) (deferential review of Rule 60(b) proceedings)
Panares v. Liquid Carbonic Indus. Corp., 94 F.3d 338 (7th Cir. 1996) (factors and Advisory Committee Note guidance for Rule 4(m))
Thrasher v. City of Amarillo, 709 F.3d 509 (5th Cir. 2013) (Fifth Circuit’s heightened standard when dismissal effectively bars refiling)
Millan v. USAA Gen. Indem. Co., 546 F.3d 321 (5th Cir. 2008) (grounds for dismissal with prejudice)
Tuke v. United States, 76 F.3d 155 (7th Cir. 1996) (warning that suits filed near the limitations deadline demand special care to effect timely service)
Kennedy v. Schneider Elec., 893 F.3d 414 (7th Cir. 2018) (Rule 60(b) relief available only in extraordinary circumstances)