Oldroyd v. Kanjo, 432 P.3d 879

Oldroyd filed a medical-malpractice complaint July 21, 2017; service on Dr. Kanjo occurred October 26, 2017 (97 days after filing), past the 90-day deadline in W.R.C.P. 4(w).
The district court found the suit timely on statute-of-limitations and jurisdictional grounds but dismissed sua sponte for untimely service, which effectively barred refiling because the limitations period had expired.
Oldroyd submitted process-server declarations describing multiple unsuccessful attempts at various Utah addresses and eventual service at a workplace; the declarations lacked dates and detailed chronology.
The district court concluded Oldroyd failed to show "good cause" for a mandatory extension under Rule 4(w) and—despite finding discretionary factors slightly favored an extension—denied a permissive extension based on prior procedural failures by Oldroyd's counsel.
The Wyoming Supreme Court held the record supported denial of mandatory "good cause" relief but found the district court abused its discretion by denying a seven-day permissive extension as a punitive response to unrelated counsel mistakes; it reversed and remanded.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Oldroyd showed "good cause" under W.R.C.P. 4(w) to mandate extending service time	Oldroyd argued he made reasonable, good-faith attempts to locate and serve Kanjo and thus satisfied good cause	Kanjo argued service was untimely and Rule 4(w) requires dismissal absent good cause; defendant relied on untimely service	Court: No — record lacked dates/particulars showing reasonable efforts or an external factor, so no mandatory extension
Whether a discretionary (permissive) extension should have been granted despite lack of good cause	Oldroyd argued discretionary factors (statute-of-limitations bar, lack of prejudice, notice, likelihood of service) favor a short extension so case isn't lost on the merits	Kanjo argued dismissal appropriate given untimely service and plaintiff was represented by counsel; district court relied on plaintiff counsel's unrelated procedural failures to deny extension	Court: Yes — discretionary factors weighed in favor; district court abused discretion by denying a seven-day extension as punishment for unrelated counsel errors; reversal and remand

Jones v. Frank, 973 F.2d 872 (10th Cir.) (standard: dismissal for untimely service reviewed for abuse of discretion)
Espinoza v. United States, 52 F.3d 838 (10th Cir.) (discusses Rule 4(m)/Rule 4(w) extensions and court discretion)
Horenkamp v. Van Winkle & Co., 402 F.3d 1129 (11th Cir.) (permissive extension where statute of limitations would bar refiling)
Panaras v. Liquid Carbonic Indus. Corp., 94 F.3d 338 (7th Cir.) (dual inquiry: good cause and discretionary factors)
Floyd v. United States, 900 F.2d 1045 (7th Cir.) (Rule 4 construed as a docket-management tool, not an instrument of oppression)
Lepone-Dempsey v. Carroll County Comm'rs, 476 F.3d 1277 (11th Cir.) (good cause requires outside factors beyond mere negligence)
In re Kirkland, 86 F.3d 172 (10th Cir.) (mistake of counsel usually does not establish good cause)
Putnam v. Morris, 833 F.2d 903 (10th Cir.) (counsel error is generally insufficient for good cause)
Despain v. Salt Lake Area Metro Gang Unit, 13 F.3d 1436 (10th Cir.) (same principle on counsel mistake and good cause)