Padilla v. Reed, A-1-CA-36117

Plaintiff filed a negligence complaint arising from a car accident shortly before the statute of limitations ran (October 2014) but did not serve Defendant immediately.
The district court dismissed the case for lack of prosecution in June 2015; Plaintiff moved to reinstate, claiming settlement negotiations but initially failed to comply with Rule 1-041(E).
On April 26, 2016 the district court granted reconsideration and reinstated the complaint, explicitly ordering Plaintiff to serve Defendant within 30 days.
Plaintiff did not effect service until June 17, 2016 (52 days after reinstatement; ~20 months after filing).
Defendant moved to dismiss for insufficient service of process; the district court granted the motion. Plaintiff appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether dismissal for failure to timely serve process was proper	Padilla argued dismissal was inappropriate because he was engaged in settlement negotiations and had informed the court	Reed argued Plaintiff failed to serve within the court-ordered deadline and did not exercise due diligence	Court affirmed dismissal for insufficient service and lack of due diligence in serving process

None of the authorities cited in the opinion include official reporter citations in the published memorandum opinion (opinion cites Romero v. Bachicha, Graubard v. Balcor Co., and Summit Elec. Supply Co. v. Rhodes & Salmon, P.C., but only by internal memorandum or court number). The panel relied on those precedents for the principle that unreasonable delay in service can justify dismissal under an objective-diligence standard.