TEED v. ASTRAZENECA PHARMACEUTICALS LP, 2:19-cv-07584

Background:

Case Management Order No. 65 identified 1,535 PPI MDL cases in which plaintiffs had not filed proof of service for AZLP, AZPLP, and Merck and ordered plaintiffs to (1) file proof of service, (2) voluntarily dismiss, or (3) show cause within 30 days.
Rule 4(m) requires service within 90 days or dismissal absent good cause; Third Circuit law requires demonstration of good faith and a reasonable basis for delay.
1,181 plaintiffs on Exhibit A neither proved timely service nor dismissed the AZ Defendants; where service was effected it occurred 1–4+ years after the Rule 4(m) deadline.
Plaintiffs filed largely identical, unsupported responses focusing on waiver and tolling agreements rather than explaining why service was untimely or documenting efforts to serve.
The court found prejudice to the AZ Defendants from wasted time and resources and concluded plaintiffs failed to show good cause or to persuade the court to exercise its discretion to extend time.
Conclusion: the AZ Defendants were dismissed without prejudice from the cases listed on Exhibit A.

Issues:

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
1. Whether plaintiffs showed good cause under Rule 4(m)	Plaintiffs asserted reasons generally (tolling, MDL processes) and sought extensions but offered no case‑specific explanation of delay or documentary proof of efforts to serve.	AZ: plaintiffs made no showing of good faith or reasonable basis for the multi‑year delays; prejudice resulted.	No good cause shown; factor analysis (efforts, prejudice, failure to request extension earlier) favors dismissal.
2. Whether the court should exercise its discretion to extend time absent good cause	Plaintiffs argued tolling and that defendants had notice via MDL/tolling and litigation activity, so discretion should favor extension.	AZ: lack of actual notice, no conduct that lulled plaintiffs, statute of limitations and counsel representation weigh against extension.	Court declined discretionary extension after weighing actual notice, prejudice, SOL, defendant conduct, and representation by counsel.
3. Whether AZ waived service defenses by prior motions/answers/notices or by participating in MDL	Plaintiffs argued waiver where AZ moved to dismiss on other grounds, filed answers/short answers, or otherwise engaged in MDL activity.	AZ: CMO No. 7 reserved all defenses and restricted dismissal motions; answers/appearances did not waive service; AZ did not previously abandon a service defense.	No waiver: CMO No. 7 preserved rights; defendants’ conduct did not amount to affirmative waiver in these cases.
4. Whether tolling agreement or MDL participation provided "actual notice" excusing service	Plaintiffs relied on tolling agreement and MDL interactions to argue defendants were on notice of claims and service defense should be excused.	AZ: tolling did not identify specific plaintiffs/defendants or provide proof of receipt; MDL participation ≠ actual legal notice in individual cases.	Tolling/MDL did not establish actual legal notice sufficient to excuse compliance with Rule 4(m).

Key Cases Cited:

MCI Telecommunications Corp. v. Teleconcepts, 71 F.3d 1096 (3d Cir. 1995) (articulates good‑cause standard and factors for Rule 4(m)).
Petrucelli v. Bohringer & Ratzinger, 46 F.3d 1298 (3d Cir. 1995) (discretion to extend service in absence of good cause; delay by counsel need not be excused).
McCurdy v. American Board of Plastic Surgery, 157 F.3d 191 (3d Cir. 1998) (plaintiff bears burden to show good cause for failure to serve).
Chiang v. U.S. Small Business Administration, [citation="331 F. App'x 113"] (3d Cir. 2009) (factors guiding court's discretionary extensions under Rule 4(m)).
King v. Taylor, 694 F.3d 650 (6th Cir. 2012) (extensive defendant participation in litigation may bar a later service defense).
Edwards v. Hillman, [citation="849 F. App'x 23"] (3d Cir. 2021) (recognizing court's discretion under Rule 4(m) where good cause is not shown).