Severson v. DUPI Underwriting Agencies, B.V. of Rotterdam Netherlands

— 1 — — 2 — — 3 — 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA — 6 — 7 MICHAEL SEVERSON, Case No. 24-cv-07914-TLT 8 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE FOR 9 v. FAILURE TO SERVE FOREIGN DEFENDANT 10 DUPI UNDERWRITING AGENCIES, B.V., ROTTERDAM, NETHERLANDS, Re: Dkt. No. 11 — 11 — Defendant. — 12 — 13 On November 12, 2024, Plaintiff Michael Severson filed a complaint against Defendant 14 DUPI Underwriting Agencies, B.V. ECF 1. Defendant is a foreign corporation located in 15 Rotterdam, Netherlands. Id. ¶ 2. As of February 13, 2025, Plaintiff has not served the Defendant 16 for 93 days. However, Plaintiff indicates that he has been in contact with Defendant and is 17 currently conducting settlement discussions. See ECF 11, at 2. The Court notes that service by 18 Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil and 19 Commercial Matters (“Hague Service Convention”) may be applicable here. 20 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) requires that a plaintiff properly serve process on 21 each defendant within 90 days of filing a complaint. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). Where a defendant is 22 not served within 90 days, the Court must dismiss the action without prejudice against the 23 defendant or order that service be made within a specific time. Id. Rule 4(m) specifically exempts 24 service on individuals in foreign countries pursuant to Rule 4(f) from the 90–day limit. See Fed. 25 R. Civ. P. 4(m) (“This subdivision (m) does not apply to service in a foreign country under Rule 26 4(f), 4(h)(2), or 4(j)(1), or to service of a notice under Rule 71.1(d)(3)(A).”); see also Lucas v. 27 Natoli, 936 F.2d 432 , 432–33 (9th Cir.1991) (“The plain language of [Rule 4(m)] makes the [90]– 1 stipulate the requirements for service on corporations in foreign countries. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 2 4(f), 4ch)(2). Rule 4(f) does not impose any specific time limits. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(f). 3 The lack of an explicit deadline under Rule 4(f) to complete service does not mean that a 4 || plaintiff has an unlimited amount of time to serve a foreign defendant. Int’! Metaphysical 5 Ministry, Inc. v. Schaefer, No. C 18-4524 SBA, 2018 WL 10560778 , at *2 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 21, 6 2018) (citing Nylock Corp. V. Fastener World Inc., 396 F.3d 805, 807 (7th Cir. 2005) (“Because 7 district courts need to be able to control their dockets, . . . the amount of time allowed for foreign 8 service is not unlimited.”)). As a matter of its inherent authority to manage cases on its docket, a 9 || district court may set “a reasonable time limit for service in a foreign country... .” Jd. (quoting 10 Inst. of Cetacean Research v. Sea Shepherd Conservation Soc'y, 153 F. Supp. 3d 1291 , 1320 11 (W.D. Wash. 2015)). The failure to serve a defendant within the time set by a court may 12 || constitute grounds for failure to prosecute under Rule 41(b). See, e.g., Anderson v. Air West, Inc., 5 13 || 542 F.2d 522, 525 (9th Cir. 1976). 14 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that by no later than March 10, 2025, Plaintiff shall file 3 15 proof of service. The Court SETS an initial case management conference for July 10, 2025, at 2 16 p.m. = 17 IT IS SO ORDERED. || Datea: February 13, 2025 20 United States District Judge — 21 — — 22 — — 23 — — 24 — — 25 — — 26 — — 27 — — 28 —