BRADFORD GOODMAN V. INSULATORS - LOCAL 82, No. 18-35145 (9th Cir. 2019)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED NOV 26 2019 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT BRADFORD PAUL GOODMAN; PETER WESLEY GOODMAN, No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 18-35145 D.C. No. 2:17-cv-00010-TOR Plaintiffs-Appellants, MEMORANDUM* v. HEAT AND FROST INSULATORS AND ALLIED WORKERS LOCAL 82; et al., Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington Thomas O. Rice, District Judge, Presiding Submitted November 18, 2019** Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges. Bradford Paul Goodman and Peter Wesley Goodman appeal pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing their labor and employment action for failure to serve the summons and complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m). * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion. Oyama v. Sheehan (In re Sheehan), 253 F.3d 507, 511 (9th Cir. 2001). We affirm. The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing plaintiffs’ action without prejudice because plaintiffs failed to effect timely and proper service of the summons and complaint and did not show good cause for their failure, after being given notice and an opportunity to do so. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(h) (setting forth how to serve a corporation or association); Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m) (district court may dismiss an action without prejudice for failure to serve, after providing notice to the plaintiff and absent a showing of good cause); In re Sheehan, 253 F.3d at 512 (discussing Rule 4(m)’s “good cause” standard). The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration because plaintiffs failed to demonstrate any grounds for relief. See Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993) (setting forth standard of review and grounds for relief from judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)). AFFIRMED. 2 18-35145
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
