United States of America v. The Boeing Company

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: July 24, 2023
• Docket: 2:19-cv-00600
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4

5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 9 10 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ex rel. CASE NO. 2:19-CV-00600-LK 11 AHMED BASHIR, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 12 Plaintiff, v. 13 THE BOEING COMPANY et al., 14 Defendants. 15 16 This matter comes before the Court sua sponte. On July 26, 2022, following the 17 Government’s Second Notice of Election to Decline Intervention, the Court ordered the pleadings 18 in this case unsealed and directed Relator-Plaintiff Ahmed Bashir to serve a copy of his amended 19 complaint on all Defendants. Dkt. No. 74 at 1; see 31 U.S.C. § 3730(b)(2). Defendants Boeing and 20 Jerry Dunmire have since moved to dismiss the amended complaint. Dkt. No. 77. And Bashir 21 voluntarily dismissed Defendant GDC Technics, LLC. Dkt. No. 82–84. However, Defendant 22 Mohammad Hamad A. Al Zeer has not appeared in this case either pro se or through counsel. Nor 23 has Bashir filed an affidavit or other proof of proper service on Al Zeer. See 31 U.S.C. § 24 1 3730(b)(3); Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(e), (l)(1).1 2 “An individual or entity named as a defendant is not obliged to engage in litigation unless 3 notified of the action, and brought under a court’s authority, by formal process.” Murphy Bros., 4 Inc. v. Michetti Pipe Stringing, Inc., 526 U.S. 344, 347 (1999); see also Omni Cap. Int’l, Ltd. v.

5 Rudolf Wolff & Co., 484 U.S. 97, 104 (1987) (“Before a federal court may exercise personal 6 jurisdiction over a defendant, the procedural requirement of service of summons must be 7 satisfied.”). And when, as here, “a defendant is not served within 90 days after the complaint is 8 filed, the court—on motion or on its own after notice to the plaintiff—must dismiss the action 9 without prejudice against the defendant or order that service be made within a specified time.” 10 Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). The district court must extend the 90-day period upon a showing of good 11 cause and, absent such a showing, retains broad discretion to dismiss the action or extend the 12 period for service. Id.; see In re Sheehan, 253 F.3d 507, 512 (9th Cir. 2001); Efaw v. Williams, 473 13 F.3d 1038, 1041 (9th Cir. 2007). “[I]f good cause is not established, the district court may extend 14 time for service upon a showing of excusable neglect.” Lemoge v. United States, 587 F.3d 1188,

15 1198 (9th Cir. 2009).2 16 The Court therefore ORDERS Bashir to show cause, within 21 days of this Order, why the 17 Court should not dismiss all claims against Al Zeer without prejudice for failure to timely serve 18 him in accordance with Rule 4. Alternatively, to justify an extension of the now-expired 90-day 19 window, Bashir may set forth facts establishing good cause or excusable neglect. The Court will 20

21 1 In August 2021, the Clerk of Court electronically issued a summons addressed to Al Zeer at a Texas address. Dkt. No. 45-2 at 1. Although Bashir’s amended complaint alleges that Al Zeer “spent long stretches of time in the State of 22 Texas during the time period relevant to this lawsuit,” Dkt. No. 61 at 6, it is unclear whether Al Zeer still resides in Texas. And, according to the amended complaint, Al Zeer is a citizen of Saudi Arabia. Id.; see Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(f), 23 (k)(2), (l)(2). 2 The Court notes, however, that the 90-day service window “does not apply to service in a foreign country under Rule 24 4(f), 4(h)(2), or 4(j)(1)[.]” Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). 1 dismiss Al Zeer without prejudice absent a timely response. 2 Dated this 24th day of July, 2023. 3 A 4 Lauren King United States District Judge 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23