Montoya v. Ethicon, Inc.
2:14-cv-11447
S.D.W. VaMar 3, 2016Background
- Plaintiff filed a short-form complaint in MDL No. 2327 on February 28, 2014 alleging claims related to Ethicon pelvic mesh products.
- In this MDL, Pretrial Order No. 20 allowed plaintiffs to avoid formal service if they emailed or mailed a short-form complaint and product-identifying records to defendants.
- Rule 4(m) (1993 version) required service within 120 days of filing; here that deadline was June 28, 2014.
- Plaintiff did not effectuate service (by formal service or the PTO method) within 120 days and served only after defendants moved to dismiss for insufficient service under Rule 12(b)(5).
- Plaintiff did not demonstrate good cause for the delay; the court considered whether it nonetheless could exercise discretion to extend the deadline.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether service was timely under FRCP 4(m) | Montoya argued service was effectively made (after motion) or excused under MDL procedures | Defendants argued service was not made within 120 days and dismissal is required | Service was untimely; dismissal granted for insufficient service |
| Whether the court may extend 4(m) deadline absent good cause | Montoya argued the court could grant discretionary extension under amended Rule 4(m) | Defendants argued strict application warranted in MDL and no good cause shown | Court held plaintiff showed no good cause; even if discretionary extension were available, court declines to extend given MDL management and plaintiff's failure to use simplified email method |
Key Cases Cited
- Mendez v. Elliot, 45 F.3d 75 (4th Cir. 1995) (holding dismissal required absent a showing of good cause under Rule 4)
- Henderson v. United States, 517 U.S. 654 (1996) (noting Rule 4(m) amendments allow courts discretion to extend time even without good cause)
- Efaw v. Williams, 473 F.3d 1038 (9th Cir. 2007) (Rule 4(m) does not mandate good-cause showing before district court may extend time)
- Horenkamp v. Van Winkle and Co., Inc., 402 F.3d 1129 (11th Cir. 2005) (same: courts have discretion under Rule 4(m))
- Thompson v. Brown, 91 F.3d 20 (5th Cir. 1996) (discussing Rule 4(m) and discretionary extensions)
- Giacomo-Tano v. Levine, 199 F.3d 1327 (4th Cir. 1999) (unpublished table decision recognizing district court discretion under amended Rule 4(m))