Unpublished Disposition, 923 F.2d 861 (9th Cir. 1991)

MEMORANDUM^** 

It is well established in this circuit that mere inadvertence or negligence does not qualify as good cause for a failure to comply with Rule 4(j). West Coast Theatre Corp. v. City of Portland, 897 F.2d 1519, 1528 (9th Cir. 1990); Wei v. State of Hawaii, 763 F.2d 370, 372 (9th Cir. 1985) (per curiam). This is so because Rule 4(j) "is intended to force parties and their attorneys to be diligent in prosecuting their causes of action." Wei, 763 F.2d at 372.

With this standard in mind, we hold that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Baker's action. Her sole effort to comply with Rule 4(j)'s 120-day deadline was made on the 118th day. The personal and professional pressures on Baker's attorney do not excuse this delay, nor do weather conditions. See United States ex rel. DeLoss v. Kenner General Contractors, Inc., 764 F.2d 707, 710 (9th Cir. 1985) (half-hearted efforts to effect service of process do not excuse failure to comply with Rule 4(j)); Woolfolk v. Thomas, 725 F. Supp. 1281, 1284 (N.D.N.Y.1989) (counsel's claim to have been preoccupied with another trial insufficient to establish good cause). Baker's suggestion that prejudice to the defendant should be weighed in assessing good cause is contrary to established law in this circuit. West Coast Theatre Corp., 897 F.2d at 1529.

The district court's dismissal of Baker's action is therefore AFFIRMED.