McRae v. Hughes Group, LLC

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: June 19, 2020
• Docket: 3:19-cv-05753
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2

5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 7 ERICA ANDREA MCRAE, CASE NO. C19-5753 BHS 8 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING 9 v. DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS AND REVOKING 10 HUGHES GROUP, LLC, PLAINTIFF’S IN FORMA PAUPERIS STATUS FOR 11 Defendant. PURPOSES OF APPEAL 12

13 This matter comes before the Court on Defendant Hughes Group, LLC’s (“Hughes 14 Group”) motion to dismiss. Dkt. 14. 15 On August 13, 2019, Plaintiff Erica Andrea McRae (“McRae”) filed a motion to 16 proceed in forma pauperis and proposed complaint against Hughes Group alleging claims 17 of employment discrimination. Dkts. 1, 1-1. On October 15, 2019, the Court granted her 18 motion after she corrected some deficiencies in her affidavit and accepted her complaint. 19 Dkt. 4. On February 13, 2020, the Court ordered McRae to show cause why the 20 complaint has not been served within 90 days of filing. Dkt. 11. On March 9, 2020, 21 McRae responded, stated that she had recently mailed the complaint, and requested an 22 extension of time to serve. Dkt. 12. 1 On April 7, 2020, Hughes Group filed the instant motion requesting dismissal for 2 failure to timely perfect service. Dkt. 14. McRae did not respond, which the Court

3 considers an admission that the motion has merit. Local Rules W.D. Wash. LCR 7(b)(2). 4 On May 1, 2020, Hughes Group replied. Dkt. 16. 5 In this case, the Court agrees with Hughes Group that McRae has failed to timely 6 perfect service. The remaining issue is whether to dismiss the complaint without 7 prejudice or grant McRae an extension of time to perfect service. If service is not made 8 within 90 days, the Court “must dismiss the action without prejudice against that

9 defendant or order that service be made within a specified time.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). 10 Even if McRae responded and requested additional time, she must show good cause for 11 her failures, which requires a showing that “(a) the party to be served received actual 12 notice of the lawsuit; (b) the defendant would suffer no prejudice; and (c) plaintiff would 13 be severely prejudiced if [her] complaint were dismissed.” Sebastian Brown Prods., LLC

14 v. Muzooka, Inc., 143 F. Supp. 3d 1026, 1035 (N.D. Cal. 2015). There is no showing in 15 the record to establish good case. Therefore, the Court GRANTS Hughes Group’s 16 motion, DISMISSES McRae’s complaint without prejudice, and REVOKES McRae’s 17 in forma pauperis status for purposes of appeal. 18 IT IS SO ORDERED.

19 Dated this 19th day of June, 2020. A 20 21 BENJAMIN H. SETTLE 22 United States District Judge