Trustees of the United Plant and Production Workers Local 175 Benefits Fund v. Mana Construction Group, LTD., 2:18-cv-04269

Plaintiffs (Trustees of a benefits fund) sued Mana Construction and others under LMRA § 301, ERISA §§ 502(a)(3) and 515, and for breach of contract; an Amended Complaint (adding U.S. Specialty Insurance Company (USSIC) and Fidelity & Deposit Co. of Maryland (F&D)) was filed March 25, 2020.
Under Rule 4(m) Plaintiffs’ deadline to serve the Amended Complaint expired June 23, 2020; USSIC and F&D were not served with a summons and were served only with a copy of the Amended Complaint in December 2020.
USSIC and F&D moved to dismiss under Rules 12(b)(2), (4), and (5) for lack of personal jurisdiction due to defective service, and also raised other Rule 12 defenses; Plaintiffs cross-moved for an extension to serve an amended summons (Rule 4(m)).
Plaintiffs argued COVID-19 office closures and a State executive order tolled timing; defendants produced evidence Plaintiffs litigated and served process in other matters during the pandemic and argued prejudice from delay.
Magistrate Judge Lindsay recommended denying Plaintiffs’ extension request and granting defendants’ Rule 12(b)(2)/(4)/(5) dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction because Plaintiffs failed to show good cause or a colorable excuse and caused prejudice by lengthy delay.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether failure to serve a summons is fatal to jurisdiction	Service of the complaint (delivered) plus notice is sufficient; defects can be cured	Service without a summons is fatally defective under Rule 4; summons is required to confer personal jurisdiction	Failure to serve a summons rendered service defective; personal jurisdiction lacking, dismissal recommended
Whether Plaintiffs showed good cause under Rule 4(m) for untimely service	COVID-19 office closure and State tolling orders prevented timely service	Pandemic disruption claim vague; Plaintiffs still litigated other matters and offered no specific evidence of inability to serve; no prior request for extension	No good cause shown; vague pandemic explanation insufficient
Whether court should exercise discretion to extend time absent good cause	Discretion should be exercised given notice to defendants and potential merits	Courts should deny extensions where plaintiff failed to diligently pursue service and defendants would be prejudiced	Discretion denied: plaintiffs showed no diligence, no timely efforts to cure, and delay prejudiced defendants
Whether defendants were prejudiced by the delay	Plaintiffs asserted defendants had notice and prejudice minimal	Delay caused loss of records, defendants’ ability to investigate impaired; key witnesses/entities out of business or dismissed	Prejudice to defendants weighed heavily against granting extension; supports dismissal

Omni Capital Int'l, Ltd. v. Rudolf Wolff & Co., Ltd., 484 U.S. 97 (1987) (service of summons is the procedural act that establishes personal jurisdiction)
Dynegy Midstream Servs. v. Trammochem, 451 F.3d 89 (2d Cir. 2006) (Rule 4 summons requirement is a prerequisite to court's exercise of personal jurisdiction)
Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env't, 523 U.S. 83 (1998) (jurisdictional requirements are threshold and inflexible)
Zapata v. City of New York, 502 F.3d 192 (2d Cir. 2007) (district courts have discretion to extend service time under Rule 4(m) but may deny absent good cause)
Bogle-Assegai v. Connecticut, 470 F.3d 498 (2d Cir. 2006) (actual notice does not excuse failure to comply with Rule 4; plaintiff must seek relief to cure defective service)