Park v. Line Corp.
Opinion
I 58" S
: ! [ft 1:
f:
E§§§J8.l- 1 I p lg!
x
94!
l I T §~ * *aw
3'L31*
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
OF GUAM
GUAM L " . ».~-Q1-mn,
EUNMI PARK and GREENCORP, EUNMIPARKandGREENCORP, CIVIL CIVIL CASE NO. CV0337-24
Plaintiffs,
DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING GRANTING
vs. MOTION MOTION TO
TO DISMISS
LINE LINE CORPORATION CORPORATION and and CHANGSEOK
AN,
Defendants. Defendants.
Defendant Line Line Corporation
Corporation moves
moves to
to dismiss
dismiss all
allcharges
charges against
against Defendant
Defendant Changseok
Changseok
An for An for failure failure to to timely
timely serve
serve process
process upon An under
underGuam
GuamRule
Ruleof
ofCivil
Civil Procedure
Procedure 4(m)_.
4(m).
Plaintiffs PlaintiffsEunmi Eunmi Park
Park and Greencorp argue
arguethat
thatRule
Rule4(m)
4(m) exempts
exempts service
service in a foreign
foreign country
country
from the 90-day deadlines and 90-day deadlines andrequests requestsLine
Linebe
besanctioned
sanctionedunder
underRule
Rule11.
11.Upon
Uponreview
review of the
supporting materials,the supporting materials, theCourt CourtGRANTS
GRANTSLine's
Line's Motion
Motion to
to Dismiss
Dismiss and DENIES Plaintiffs and DENIES Plaintiffs'
request to impose sanctions.
sanctions.
I. 1. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND BACKGROUND
After After filing filing their
their Complaint,
Complaint, Plaintiffs requested Anwaive requested An waive service service of
of process.
process. Plaintiffs
sent the the waiver waiver request requestto
to An's
An's last
last known address asstated address as statedininLine's Line's corporate
corporatefilings
filings with the
Government of Guam.
Guam. Mot.
Mot. Dismiss
Dismiss Hr'g
Hr'g(June
(June 12,
12, 2025). Plaintiffs
Plaintiffsstate
state that
that they relied on
this address becauseLine's address because Line's Initial Disclosures represented that thatAn's
An's address was "unknown."
address was "unknown."
Decl. Deel. Leevin Leevin Camacho Camacho in Supp. Opp'n Mot. Dismiss at Supp. Opp'n at2, 2,Ex.
Ex.AA (May 6,
6, 2025).
Per Rule 4(d)(l)(f), 4(d)(1)(f), Plaintiffs
Plaintiffshad
hadto
to wait
waitsixty
sixtydays
days for
for the
the return ofthe
return of thewaiver.
waiver. The
waiver request was returned waiver returnedwith withinformation
informationthat
thatthe
theaddress
addresswas
wasinvalid.
invalid.Mot.
Mot.Dismiss
DismissHr'g.
Hr'g.
cv0337-24 CV0337-24 DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS Page 2
After this, Plaintiffs attempted to retain a firm After firm to assist with foreign service, but first needed to
translate the translate the Summons Summons and Complaint as
and Complaint as required requiredunder
underthe
theHague convention. Id.
Hagueconvention. Translations Id Translations
were completed on on or
or about March 24,
24, 2025.
2025. Opp'n
Opp'n Mot.
Mot. Dismiss
Dismiss Def.
Def. Changseok
Changseok An
An at
at 3,
3;
Deel. Leevin Camacho in Supp. Opp'n Decl. Mot. Dismiss Opp'n Mot. Dismiss at
at 2.
Plaintiffs contend they then had to to threaten
threaten Line
Line with
with aa motion
motion to
to compel
compel to
to get An's
An's
mailing address. Deal.
Deel. Leevin
Leevin Camacho
Camacho in
in Supp.
Supp. Opp'n
Opp'n Mot.
Mot. Dismiss
Dismiss at
at 2. On
On April
April 3,
3, 2025,
Plaintiffs mailed the original original and
and translated
translated documents
documents via
via registered
registered mail
mail to
to South
South Korea's
Korea's
designated Central Authority.
Authority. Opp'n
Opp'n Mot.
Mot. Dismiss
Dismiss Def.
Def. Changseok
Changseok An
An at
at 3-4,
3-4; Decl.
Deel. Leevin
Camacho in Supp. Opp'n Mot. Dismiss at 2.
_Line argues that Plaintiffs Plaintiffs always
always had
had access
access to it was on to An's address because it on the
Korean Judgment, however however Plaintiffs
Plaintiffs state
state that the address Line provided is different from the
address in the the Korean
Korean Judgment.
Judgment. Line
Line Corp.'s
Corp.'s Reply
Reply in
in Supp.
Supp. Mot.
Mot. Dismiss Def. Changseok An
at 3 (May 20, 20, 2025);
2025), Mot.
Mot. Dismiss
Dismiss Hr'
Hr'g.
II. 11. LAW AND AND ANALYSIS
ANALYSIS
FailuretotoServe
A. Failure ServeProcess Process
Rule 4(m) states that "if "if a defendant is not served within 90 days after the complaint is
filed, the the court-on motion or on its own initiative initiative after notice to the plaintiff-must dismiss the
action without prejudice against that defendant or order that service be made within a specified
time ...] time[ ... This subdivision does not apply to service in a foreign country under Rule 4(f), 4(h)(2),
or 4G)(1)-"
4G)(l)." Line argues argues that under Rule 4(m), the Court Court must dismiss
dismiss this action against An
because he was not served within ten months after filing filing the
the Complaint.
Complaint. Line Corp.'s
Corp.'s Reply in
Supp. Mot.
Mot. Dismiss Dismiss Def.
Def. Changseok
Changseok An at 1.
1. Plaintiffs
Plaintiffs counter
counter that An resides in South Korea
CV0337-24 DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING GRANTING MOTION
MOTION TO
TO DISMISS
DISMISS Page 3
3
and this this Rule Rule explicitly explicitly exempts service in aa foreign foreign country
country from
from the
the 90-day
90-daydeadline.
deadline. Opp'n
Opp'n
Mot. Dismiss Mot. Dismiss Def.
Def. Changseok
Changseok An
An at
at 1.
The Court recognizes recognizes that
that under
under Rule
Rule 4(m),
4(m), the exception to the 90-day 90-day service
requirement for requirement for service service of
of individuals
individuals living
living in foreign
foreign countries
countriesapplies
appliestotoAn.
An. However,
However, "the
amount of amount of time time allowed
allowed for foreign
foreign service
service is
is not unlimited."
unlimited." Nylok
Nylok Corp.
Corp. v.
v. Fastener
Fastener World
Inc., 396 F.3d 805, 807 (7th Cir. 2005). Courts Courtshave
havefound
found ititproper
properto
to set
set aa reasonable
reasonable time
limit to serve limit to serve foreign foreignparties
parties or
ordismiss actions ififattempts dismiss actions attempts at at service
service have
have not
not been
been made
made or
or aa
plaintiff is is "dilatory." Id.; Inst. 0f "dilatory." Id., ofCetacean Rscn.
Rsch. v.
v. Sea
Sea Shepherd Conservation Soc'y, 153 F.
'y, 153
Supp. 3d Supp. ad 1291, 1291, 1320 1320(W.D.
(W.D. Wash. 2015); v. MacNeilI, Feliz v.
2015), Feliz MacNeill, 493 493 Fed. Appx. 128,
128, 131
131 (1st
(let Cir.
Courts have 2012). Courts havefound found that
that this
this rule authorizes a dismissal dismissal without prejudice if without prejudice if the the plaintiff
plaintiff
has failed to demonstrate demonstrate "reasonable
"reasonable diligence" attempting service. Lozano diligence" in attempting v. Bosket, Lozano v. Bosdet, 693
693
F.3d 485,489 489 (5th Cir. 2012).
the Court
Here, the Court finds aa substantial gap of substantial gap of time between when the Complaint was filed and and
when a request requestwas wasmade
madetotoLine forAn's
Linefor An's address-a gapofofabout address-a gap aboutseven sevenmonths
months from
from July
July 30,
and March 2025.
2024, and Plaintiffsassert 2025. Plaintiffs assert that that they required sixty days to to attempt
attemptto
to receive
receive waiver
ofservice of service from from An,
An,however,
however,even
evenallocating
allocatingfor
forthis
thistime,
time,there
there remains
remains a gap of five
five months
months
when the from when the waiver ofservice waiver of service was
was due
due and when further
furtherefforts
efforts were
were made
madeto
to find
find An's
An's
address, specifically, address, specifically, the request requestmade
madeto
toLine. While the
Line. While the Court
Court recognizes that Plaintiffs Plaintiffs have
since gone to to the
the effort comply with effort to comply with the the requirements of the Hague Hague Convention,
Convention, Plaintiffs
Plaintiffs
nonetheless failed nonetheless failed to to exercise
exercise reasonable
reasonablediligence
diligencebecause
becauseof
ofthis
thisfive-month
five-monthgap.
gap. Plaintiffs
argue that also argue thatLine Line directly
directly delayed
delayed service on An failing to An by failing to provide providethis
this address,
address, however,
other efforts efforts could could have
have been
been made by Plaintiffs
Plaintiffsto
togather
gatherthis
this information
informationsuch
such as
as hiring
hiring an
an
investigator. investigator.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Park v. Line Corp. (Park v. Line Corp.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.