Yeh v. North Carolina State University
5:18-cv-00397
E.D.N.C.Jun 5, 2019Background
- Yeh, an Asian-American woman, worked at NC State's CUACS from Nov 6–21, 2017 and alleges race/national-origin discrimination, disparate treatment, retaliation, and hostile workplace harassment after being terminated.
- Yeh contends coworkers and supervisors blamed her for a network/test-site error she did not cause and that NC State fired her for omitting a two-month prior job at the NC Dept. of Public Instruction from her resume.
- Yeh filed an EEOC charge on May 17, 2018 and proceeded pro se in federal court, filing a second amended complaint on Jan 28, 2019 naming NC State as sole defendant.
- Yeh mailed the summons and complaint to NC State herself by certified mail rather than using a nonparty process server as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(2).
- NC State moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, improper service, lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, and failure to state a claim; the court addressed service and personal jurisdiction and declined to reach other grounds.
- The court dismissed Yeh’s second amended complaint without prejudice for failure to effect proper service and lack of personal jurisdiction, and denied extension of the Rule 4(m) period and relief for excusable neglect.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper service under Rule 4(c)(2) | Yeh mailed summons/complaint by certified mail and treated that as sufficient service | NC State argued service was improper because a nonparty must effect service; plaintiff cannot mail to defendant herself | Court held Yeh did not effect proper service; plaintiff personally mailing documents is insufficient and warrants dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction |
| Personal jurisdiction | Yeh implicitly argued court could exercise jurisdiction because NC State received notice | NC State contended lack of personal jurisdiction due to improper service | Court held it lacked personal jurisdiction because service was improper and dismissed without prejudice |
| Extension of Rule 4(m) 120-day period | Yeh sought to proceed despite missed service deadline; pro se status and prior counsel consultations cited | NC State argued no good cause or excusable neglect; proper rules must be followed | Court declined to extend under Rule 4(m) or excusable neglect doctrine; pro se status insufficient; dismissal stands |
| Merits of discrimination claims | Yeh alleged racial and national-origin discrimination based on firing and coworkers’ treatment | NC State moved to dismiss on multiple grounds including failure to state a claim | Court did not decide merits (declined to address 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6)) due to service/personal jurisdiction defects |
Key Cases Cited
- Koehler v. Dodwell, 152 F.3d 304 (4th Cir. 1998) (improper service deprives court of personal jurisdiction)
- Baldwin County Welcome Center v. Brown, 466 U.S. 147 (U.S. 1984) (pro se plaintiffs must follow procedural rules)
- Armco, Inc. v. Penrod-Stauffer Bldg. Sys., Inc., 733 F.2d 1087 (4th Cir. 1984) (rules for service of process must be followed even with actual notice)
- Constien v. United States, 628 F.3d 1207 (10th Cir. 2010) (Rule 4(c)(2) bars plaintiff from personally mailing summons; no mailing exception)
- McNeil v. United States, 508 U.S. 106 (U.S. 1993) (pro se status does not excuse compliance with procedural requirements)
- Hansan v. Fairfax County Sch. Bd., [citation="405 F. App'x 793"] (4th Cir. 2010) (Rule 4(m) extension standards and pro se status insufficiency)