Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Ararat Megerdichian filed a complaint against the United States Department of State and other defendants in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on May 28, 2026. Because he did not complete service of the summons and complaint within the time required, the court issued an order dated August 27, 2026 directing him to show cause on or before September 3, 2026 why the action should not be dismissed for failure to complete service as required by Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
On August 31, 2026, Megerdichian filed a proof of service that the court found invalid and struck. In an order dated September 14, 2026, the court gave him a third opportunity to effectuate service, extending the service deadline to October 5, 2026, and admonished him that failure to comply could result in dismissal for failure to effect service, failure to prosecute, and/or failure to comply with a court order. As of the filing date of the October 15, 2026 order, he had not filed any proper proofs of service on the defendants.
The court's analysis rests on two sources of authority: Rule 4(m), which provides that a court on its own initiative must dismiss an action without prejudice if service is not effected within 90 days after the complaint is filed, and Rule 41(b) together with the court's inherent power, which allow dismissal for failure to prosecute or to comply with court orders, as recognized in Link v. Wabash Railroad Co. and Ferdik v. Bonzelet.
The Court’s Holding
The court held that dismissal without prejudice was appropriate. It first noted that Rule 4(m) mandates dismissal without prejudice when service is not made within 90 days of filing, and that Rule 41(b) and the inherent authority recognized in Link permit dismissal for failure to prosecute or disobedience of court orders. Because dismissal is a severe penalty, the court explained that it must be imposed only after considering the relevant factors identified in Thompson v. Housing Authority of Los Angeles and Henderson v. Duncan: the public's interest in expeditious resolution of litigation, the court's need to manage its docket, the risk of prejudice to defendants, the public policy favoring disposition on the merits, and the availability of less drastic sanctions.
Applying those factors, the court concluded that dismissal without prejudice was warranted given the plaintiff's failure to effect service within the specified time and his failure to comply with the September 14, 2026 order. The court emphasized that the plaintiff had been given multiple opportunities, including a show-cause order and a third extended deadline, and that no proper proof of service had been filed as of the date of the order.
Accordingly, the court ordered that judgment be entered dismissing the action without prejudice for failure to effect service and comply with the orders of the court. The dismissal is not an adjudication on the merits, so it does not bar refiling if service can later be completed.
Key Takeaways
- Rule 4(m) requires dismissal without prejudice when service is not effected within 90 days after the complaint is filed, absent good cause or an extension.
- Courts may also dismiss under Rule 41(b) and their inherent authority for failure to prosecute or failure to comply with court orders, but only after weighing the Henderson/Thompson factors.
- An invalid proof of service does not satisfy Rule 4, and repeated extensions with explicit warnings do not excuse continued noncompliance.
- Dismissal without prejudice under Rule 4(m) preserves the plaintiff's ability to refile, but the order signals that ignoring show-cause directives will not be tolerated.
- The five-factor analysis — expeditious resolution, docket management, prejudice to defendants, merits policy, and lesser sanctions — must be addressed before a dismissal with prejudice or as a severe sanction is imposed.
Why It Matters
This order illustrates how a district court balances the strong public policy favoring disposition on the merits against the practical needs of docket management when a plaintiff repeatedly fails to serve process despite show-cause proceedings and extended deadlines. The without-prejudice dismissal protects the defendants from indefinite delay while leaving the plaintiff's underlying claims technically alive, but the court's reasoning makes clear that further noncompliance after explicit warnings will support dismissal.
The decision also reaffirms the mandatory character of Rule 4(m)'s 90-day service deadline and the obligation of litigants to comply with court orders, applying settled Ninth Circuit authority on the factors governing severe sanctions.