Rogers v. Amalgamated Transit Union Local 689, 115 F. Supp. 3d 76

Charles H. Rogers, Jr. filed suit in D.C. Superior Court alleging his union, Amalgamated Transit Union Local 689, breached the duty of fair representation after an adverse arbitration ruling on March 4, 2014.
Rogers filed within the six-month statute of limitations and the case was removed to federal court on October 2, 2014.
Rogers failed to serve Local 689 within the 120 days required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4, prompting Local 689 to move to dismiss for lack of service.
The court denied dismissal, exercised its discretion under Rule 4(m), and granted Rogers an additional 14 days to effect service to avoid a limitations-barred refiling.
Rogers served Local 689 within that additional time (March 27, 2015); Local 689 then moved to dismiss again, arguing the claim was time-barred because the limitations period restarted when the initial 120-day period expired.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether tolling from filing continues during court-granted extension under Rule 4(m)	Filing tolled the statute; tolling should continue while the court grants additional time to serve	Tolling ceased when the initial 120-day period expired; service after the six-month limitations period therefore is untimely	Court held tolling continues while the court’s Rule 4(m) extension remains in effect, so claim is not time-barred

Mann v. American Airlines, 324 F.3d 1088 (9th Cir. 2003) (holding filing tolls the statute of limitations unless the district court dismisses the action; Rule 4(m) extensions do not restart the limitations period)
Rudder v. Williams, 47 F. Supp. 3d 47 (D.D.C. 2014) (distinguished) (held a never-served complaint does not toll the limitations period beyond Rule 4(m) where service occurred long after the limitations period expired)
Battle v. District of Columbia, 21 F. Supp. 3d 42 (D.D.C. 2014) (identifies whether the statute of limitations would bar a re-filed action as a factor in granting additional time under Rule 4(m))