• • 
? • ,. 
111 'rilE 'J ··mr'l'OIUlIl;, COUHT OF TilE VII 
~ l.sr..,\lmS 
( 
DIVISION OF ST. CROIX: I<JHGSIIILT, 
lWLlIHD S)'lITl! MID ED)II\ 5H I 'I'll , 
l'luinliffs, 
vs. 
!lESS OIL VIRGIlI ISW/DS COllI'. 
JIl.IERADII IiESS COR PORlI'l'I 011 ; 
OHENs-corunilG 1'1 UEHGLIISS 
CORPORA'1'IOH, 
DcfcJ1l1ant5, 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) , 
) 
7.7':'7:';:';:;-;:= ~- ) 
HESS OIL VIIlGIII ISLlIllDS COllP, 
) 
MID l\J·:ER/, D,\ II r;SS COl1I'OR/,'I'I Oll 
) 
'l'hit'J- ['ul' Ly Plaintiffs, 
VS. 
l30IUHQUEN INSUI.Nl'ION COI-IPlIIIY, 
KEEllE COR PO Illl '1' I ON , IIIDIV I DUiII,LY 
AliD liS SUCCESSOR III I I I1'EHl;S'l' TO 
l3l1LDIHN EIIRET-llILL CO., KI,EIIl': 
BUILDING P110DUCTS ldlD Elllll::T 
HAGHESIA HJlJlUFlIC'l'UHIHG CO" 
Oh'NES-CorunNG F1RnI::l1GLlISS 
CORPORATION, 
1'1 13EHDOlll1D , 
CORPORATION, 
PIII3CO lllDUSTHIAL 
PRODUCTS DIVIS10tl, l3l1l3COCK , 
WI LCOX, INC., HAIlVILLE PERSON ilL 
INJURY SETTLEl·IENT 'I'IlU5T, CLlIHIS 
RESOWTIOti FIICILITY FOR JOllN-
HIINVI LLE CORPOR/,'nOll, PHEDECr..sOH 
TO ~WjVI LLE' s/, LES COHPOR/,'J'IOll 
k/n/a SCHULLEll IN'l'I::JUlllTIOtlllL, 
ItIC" 
ElIGLE PICllEl1 I1IDUS1'IU ES, 
IHC., PIT1'SDUJ1Gll COJ1IHI1G COllI'. , 
PPG ItlDUSTHIES, 
l11C" 
JOliN <: I1I1HI, 
PlICKING, STIITE 1 HSUIJ\'I'lOtI 
I CORPOIlll'l'IOI1, CEHTlIlli TEED 
I CORPORATIOIl, 1'110EIlIX lIS13 ES'l'OS 
I }W1UFlIC'l'UllIlIG . COllPOR1,'l'I 011 lItl \) 
il XYZ ASl3ESTOS HIINUFlICTUHING IIHD 
I DISTIU l3U1'11~G ,COl1P,og~:qON I "_ .. 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) , 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
T )dJ'd-Put' l:y Oc Cc nd,lnL:;, 
) 
--- ) 
i, 
:' 
t.. • 
CIVIL 110. 'In/1992 
lI CTIOll FOn DMI,\GI :S 
SHITJ! IIHO !;IU'l'1I v. 
SSS OIL VIRGIN IGT.J\lI m; 
COHPORl\'l'IOJ/, E'1' ilL 
CIVIL HO. 721/1992 
/'I£HORl\NDUH OPIHION lIlID ORDER 
P}\GE 2 
'l'1I0H}\S I!. JlIlRT, III, ESQUIRE 
I3rady, lIart (, Jacobs 
#7 Church Stn~et 
Clristiansted, st. Cro ix 
u.s. Virgin Jslallds 
00 020 
(009) 
773 - 33.22 
( 
(IIttorn e y r oc Plaillti[[s) 
STIICY L. I'IIIITE, ESQUIRE 
Bryant, White (, }\9soc iatcs, P . C. 
47 King street 
Chri s ti ansted, st. CJ:oix 
u, s, Virgin Islallc.ls 
00 0 20 
(009) 
773-2705 
(Attorney [or HOVrC, llll\eraua He ss (, st. Cr o ix 
Petl-oc hemical Co rp.) 
RI CIIAHD E . DlITXY, ESQU 1 HE 
Law Office s of Pattie and Dal e y 
1110<\ st1' ''l1d street 
Christians ted, st. Croix 
u.s. Virgin Islands 
00 0 20 
(809) 
773-6650 
I (IIttorncy [ o r st"te Insul"tion Corp . ) 
I 
ill-lARY FlIn'l! CIIRPElITEn, ESQUIRE 
II Law Offices of lIdriane Dudley 
! 19 Estate Thomn:; I!avensiyht 
Ii P . O. Box 6696 
I St. Thomas, Virgin Is)ands 
0000<\ 
I (B09) 
776-7<\7<\ 
(lIttorncy [or Owens - Co rlling Fiberglass Co rp . ) 
I 
IJOHH R. COOH, ESQU1HE 
6 Chandler's Hharf, Suite 202 
I Christiu'nsted , st. Croix 
\
V.s. Virgin Islands 
000 2 0 
(009) 
-173-3681 
1 (IItto rncy [or ,:ee ne COl:p., Ea rJle l'it clH~ r J ndu,;t J; ic!;, Illc.) 
II RICII}\HD I! . IIUWrlm, ESQUIRE 
IIHunter, Colianni, Cole (, Turne r 
il 1130 King street 
I, Christians ted, st. CL·oix 
00020 
II (009) 
773-3 535 
'/ (IItt,?rney [ o r FibcL-b o uL'd C,?J'p.; · Piltsl>uuJh 'l'lln1C!L' 
i, Corn~l1g Corp., PPG Tnuustrlcs, Inc .) 
il 
.! 
. ' 
, 
1
'ISHITII M 'ID SIHTH V( " ESS OIL VIRGIN 
CORPORll'l'ION, E'l' II ... 
CIVIL NO. 721/1992 
HEHOIIJINDUH O1'INIOII IIIW onOCH 
PAGE 3 
FREDEIUCl< \'iJl'l"l'S, ESQUIRE 
h'atts, Streibich (, ncnh<l1O 
P.O. Dox 11720 
st. Thomas, Virgin IsI<lllds 
00001 
(009) 
774-0673 
J S LIIlIDS 
(l\ttorney [01,' nOl: inqucn Insulation Co,) 
Douglas Capdeville, E~quire 
2191 Chlll'ch street 
Christiansted, st. Croix 
U. S; Virgin Islands 
00020 
(B09) 
773-7275 
l 
(llttorncy for Oahcod; "nu l'Iilcox, Inc., !'l.lIIviJ Ie COI'l).) 
J 1I1'IES L. lIYHCS, ESQUIHE 
P.O. nox 990 
st. Thomas, V.I. 
00004 
'(809) 
776-J470 
I (lIttorney for John Crilne, Inc.) 
IGEJIJITJD '1'. GHOHEH, ESQUIHE 
\
5211 Company street, suite 2 
Christiansted, st, Croix 
,U,S. Virgin Islands 
00020 
I (009) 
77J-J660 
I (lIttorney [or certainteed Corp.) 
1 , 
Ii PETERSEN 
iI 
' 
!, , 
I 
, 
Senior Sil.:tillg Judge 
HEBOIlJIllDUH OPINION 
(Jillluary JJ--, 
l'IllD 
OnDF:~ 
1993) 
I 
This maLter is before the Court on TIJi l:d-Porl.:y Defe:ntl;Jl1t 
! norinque'n 
, 
Insulation Company's Motion 
Lo 
Dismiss. 
the 
'I 
il reasons stated he rein, Lhe I-Oo tion to Oi :; mic''; "'j 11 IJC 'J "':l l\\.:cd. 
:j 
" 
"!:"--
. ~ -. . .. 
~ i 
" 
,I 
F/ICTS 
I:,' ,' (hereinafter "HOVIC") ilnu IImerilua lIess C01:pol'atlol1 (llcl.'I', inaftel: 
On 
Oil 
Coq'or,-, Liol1 
Virgin 
July 
Islon\\:; 
JO, 
1992, 
lIess 
" 
:, 
, 
" 
SHI'!'H 1\11D SIH'1'1I v. " 1,55 OIL VIRGHI ISUIl1f)S 
CORPOllll'l'IOII, 
E'l' 1\i. 
CIVIL NO. 721/1992 
HEHOHlIJlDUH OPINIOH 1\HD on DEn 
Pl\GE 4 
( 
I1l\Jnerada IIcss") filed a 'l'hird-P,Il:ty Cornpl.lint a'Jain!;t 'J'hird-
Party 
Dc(cnd"nt 
l30rinquen 
InslIIution 
Compullj' 
"nol' inCj ~lcn") . 
On 1\u']ust 13, 1992, C"rol 1I. ',cevcdlJ, a lc,]"J. 
.:Issist.:lnt wi\:h the l"w finn of I3r1'unt, II/I.ite 
.111<1 lIc;:;ocjiltes, 
P. C., i\ttOl"\1CYS (or -the 'l'hird- Purty I'l"inti((s, m"ilcu 1»), UniLcd 
Stilte,; cel:ti(ied l"ilil, retuJ:n receipt l'Cflll()<;\:cd, u 
,;\1011\10115 ;11'111 
'rhird- Party c omplaint to 'J'hird - Pilrty Defend"nt DO'l"inlll\l.'I1. 
On 
December 
21, 
1992, 
the 
Law 
Office 
l"c c eivcd 
the 
rcLurncl] 
envelope. 
On Oe celllber Jl, 1992, Hs. 
1\CCVI~ L]O ;I'J"ill :';(,l'VCe! Lhe 
summons .:Inu til i nl-pilrty compia int upon nor i nquen. 
'J'lIc Unitel1 
states Post"l Service l"ctul:ned to nrY<ll1t, ""hitt! and ;,';:,;0<.: i iltc,; 
the Law Office, the United Stiltes milil cCl"tiriel] i:elllL")) receipt 
addressed to Dorinquen <1nd received by Dc(endilllt on J.:II1Uill·y 4, 
1993. 
"I 
II 
Third-Party Dc(cnc]ilnt norinquen filed a Hotion to Llj,;mis:.: 
II 
Ii on 1I0vember 19, 1992. 
'l'he motion argued th<1t the actioll ,;houl,l 
be dismissed because the Third- Party pl<lil1ti((s (idled l',o serve 
the third-party complaint and summons within I"cll.n.eiv.!'. 4 (j) 
120-day 
time 
limit . 
Third-Party Pl"intif(s 
cOllb'I"] 
L11i11: 
• i Borinquen intentional.ly avoided service of ,procc:';G. ' Tid n] - I';) :ty , 
!I il Plaintiffs also <ll"<Jue t.hat. Third-Party Defe ndant: 1301"j Ilfjucn hwu 
:i I: actual notice of the complaints "nel ,,'ilS not P,"cjurJ.ice cl by thr. 
iI I delay in service.":". 
' .. -
. , . -. 
--.. 
I 
" ii 
" 
ii 
" 
I I I 
I 
I 
i . 
S/-lITl! l\ND SH1'l'l! v. t- 'GS OIL VIHG;LII IGrAHDS 
( 
CORPONl'rION, E'l' ilL I. 
CIVIL 110. 721/1992 
NENORl\NDUH OPHIIOH IIIID OHDER 
Pl\GE 5 
Federal nule of civil Procedure 
~(j) J:ec]uires c1iGllri5!;al 
'without prejudice if a plaintiff fails to serve the :;U\II1I10n'3 and 
complaint upon the de[cndant within 120 dayG \lnle~s 'Jo0t1 
c..:"UGf~ 
is shOlm. 
'l'he 'pui'pose 'of the rule is to encollJ:il<Je Pill:Lio:::; nnLl 
their attorneys to be c1i1i,)ent in P~ll:t;\lintj Lhclt· Ga\l:~e o[ .1cl:ion 
I-Io"'e) ) 
---.~--, 
G02 
l". SUl>P. 
501 
(S.D.II.Y.l')O~) . 
The 
blll:den 
to ensure 
pl:oper 
and 
timely 
:;crvicc rc:.;l:; 
(,n 
Lhe 
plaintiff.Fed.H.Civ.l'. 4(a). 
burden of shol~ing fJood Ciluse (01' (ailure to 
GCL'V'~ Lhe ,;uli,mons 
and complaint within the prescribed 120 - day time period. 
~;qgi!2. 
v. 
Pilt·t.~nJ:eedcL'ci I·I.S. 
Yankee 
CJ.jm~ru:, 112 F.H.I). 
))5 
(l1.C. 
Hass. 190G). 
The "good cause" required to excuse the p1ainLiff's [ailure 
.. I. 
to serve the defendant within this 120 dilY period i,. 110\: t1erincL1 
i 
by the 1.'1l1e. 
The Third Circuit has stated Lhat Lhe <jQorJ COlUGe 
I 
posited by the plaintiff should require "at leas\: as 1I111c..:h ilS 
I 
.... 'ould be required to show . excusable neglect. ".!l!.:.il}: .. LQn ..... y._II)!~, 
I 
817 F.2u. 2JO 
(Jl:d Cir. 
1~07). 
Excusablc ne'Jl er;t 
"~;cel\ls Lo 
r\reQUire a 'demonstration of 'good - fuith on Lhe pill·t of l.he l';-\I:ty 
\ seeking un 
clIlilL'gemcnt ilnd 
some reasonable l';lsi ~;' [or non-
compli<lnce \<iLhin the time specified in the rules" . li1j:'I!'.\; .... !1ncl 
Hi 1 J . .9.£1 Federal- Practice ' and Procedure, § 11G~ (190'1). 
v'II·.i QU'; 
[actors con!,;idel'ed ill determining whether Lhere ..... ,," c;':':I1",,/)1e 
, j SNI'l'1! IIliD SH1'1'11 v. "ESS OIL VIHGIH ISUIIDS 
COR PO HlI 'l'I ON , 
E'l' IIf. 
CIVIL NO. 721/1992 
HEHORllllDUH OPIIIIOH liND ORDER . . 
P('\GE G 
( 
negl ec t [or [<:I i 1 u t'e to timely serve proce"s i lIel tide whe l.h<")l· the 
inadvertence 
reflected 
professionill 
incompetence 
~.al,;h 
ilG 
ignol'<:Incc of rules, whether ilsscrted advcl·tcnce l:cfJ.'"cl:; ,~a".il~' 
lnanu[acturcd··. Cl\cu::;e 
incapable 
of 
vel·ificaU.oll 
tll'-' 
COli l' I: , 
counscl's 
[ailur.e 
to 
provide 
[01.-
. l·cad.i ly 
forcGccablc 
consequence, cOl',plete l<:lck of di 1 iqencc, 
\~hclhcl' inadvcl."tcncc 
rC'sulted dcspite 
COUll!:;cl's 
substantial 
<Jood 
[;-.i\.11 
ef[orls 
tow<:Irds 
compliancc 
ilnd 
,,'hethcr 
enlal'<jcTolcnt 
of 
timc 
""iJ 1 
of Dela\,'ilrc v. T .. ilrson, 027 1'. 2d 916 (Jrd Cir. 190'1). 
n!~ll~L!1i . !<. 
1908) . 
Thc Third Circuit has strictly applicd Fcd.R.Civ,p.·I(j)'s 
120 day limit to effcct service of process. J,ovclacc v. 
lIcm~ 
Harkets, Inc., 
820 F.2d 01 
(Jrd eir. 1907); 
!,l"i'1.;~~.!;9Jl,L:t .. PD!.; 
Dorninic,s\lpra.. 
'rhe Third Circuit has held Lhilt J ,",ck of tluc 
diligence and inadvertencc of counsel will not C~:CLlse cOl11pli ilnce 
with RU~C 4 (j). 
In . I...ovelacc, supra; the trial ' COUl'l:"" tI i "l1li:;~'e<l -. 
the plaintiff's racial discrimination 5uit ""ilhout l'l.""jutlicc 
based on plaintiff's failure to wilkc timcly GcrvicQ or Pl'UCCUG 
upon deLe!ndant. 
.The! plaintiff had relie!u upon the PI:OCC:;'; 
server's bill <:IS proof th<:lt process had beclI :;cl'ved "1'(>11 the 
dcfendant. ' :. 'fhe altorncy ·· had only' re!que::;tcd adequatc" l'l'OO[ Q[ 
I service on the 120th <lily of thc prcscribcd Ul1lC poriot1. 
The 
I I .\ 
II 
I 
\ 
\ 
SNI'rJl liND SNIT/[ V.( 
';$$ OIL VIHGIll ISJ,JdW$ 
( 
COHPOM'l'ION 1 
E'l' l\IJ 
CIVIL NO. 721/1992 
~IEHOMNDUH OPINION liND ORDEn 
PIIGE 7 
'I'll i rd 
Circuit 
COUl:t 
found 
Lhat 
pla1nl:if[':.; 
:; L torne~y 
illadvertently permitted tIle 120 day period to lapse. 
TIle COllrl: 
also 
found 
that the plaintiff [ailed 
to 
ilet dili'Jcnl:ly. 
Consequently ,.' the Thinl CircLlit Court o[ lIPPcills ilrfi l'llIed 
lhe~ 
decision. 
sel.:vice had not becn lI1aue but failed Lo ta};c :Jtepe; Lo inslIl:e 
timely 
Gerv icc 
0 f 
pl.:ocess. 
'l'hc 
<':Olll.:t 
[ound 
lll;:1.t 
tile 
inadvertence of counsel did not constitute goou cau:~e 11l1do:'r Hule 
4 (j). 
'1'he trial court's di.smissal of the action "'as lI[,hclu. 
The 120-day limit i:.; not "absolutely in(le:-:ible" . .r\Gt:-;.to!l, 
The 
leCji,;) aLive history of Hule 
" (j) 
notes 
LIl'-lt 
intenti onal eVClsioll of service of process consLiLutes <Jooll 
C;:1.\I:::e~ 
I [or an extension of t.ime to serve process. 
120 Con,]. 
Hee. 
1119848, 9852 N. 25 (daily cd. Dec. 15, 1902), 
rC;:P):il)te~clj.!l )902 
!'U.S. Code Long. and lIumin. Hews 4434, 4446 IL 25. 
The Thinl 
Circuit has stated that CJooo cause mi.ght be sholm if the 
defendant intentionally eVCldes sCl-vice of 
pJ:oce~;s. 
I,<:~:'. e) "c~, 
I supra,Dominic,supra. 
'1'he COU1't in nui ... Varela v. ::>anch.9.?- V"lc7.., 
11814 
F.2d 
821 , (1st 
Cir. 
II 
1907 ) 
found 
that 
the 
e1c[cndilnl: 
II intentionally evaded service of process where co\lcft~I)lI ;\llt" h;)e] 
'. n [uiled to provide addrcss in plaintif['s intcrLO\]'iILoci,cc; ,,1)U 
!\ !i boLh defendants had mr.l t ufter one dc[eI1l1<l.nt I.'a,; ,;cl:vc':d 
~Iith 
amended campI a int '" 
-. . 5 j toilil rly, good cau::;c lo c:·: tend l.i lilt:! 
Lo 
I 
if sel-ve 
~Ias found ill Bi\)c l'ni<l HaU.onCll 
:1 
;1 
" 
:! 
I 
I I 
I 
SIHTII lIHD 5111'1'11 v. ( 
COHPOHlI'l'IOIi, 
E'l' liT, 
55 OIr, VII~GIN ISI..lIIlDS 
CIVIL NO. 721/1992 
HEHOMHDUH OPINION liND onDER 
PlIGE (l 
( 
I 
supp. 
3Cl2 
(t!. D. 
J-1I 
1.991) where a proccss 
I I defendClnt was home but refused to answer. 
lIpplying Lhe f Ol:C(Joing princi.ples to U,is cilse, tile C ~l\ ll: t 
notes that tllci" plaintiff h e rein mailed thc ,al1111nOnS ilnu c;o'"I'J;lil!l: 
by United Statcs certified milil, return l'cccipt J:C!'1lle,';LeoJ 
)0 
days aftcr Lhe filing of the cOlllplaint tl i\ te. 
1'''1' lhc Co lllJ ... ·in'.l 
110 dilYS, Lhe Third-Pil1'Ly Plai.ntiffs' atLornci':; diu notldn'J Lo 
ensure 
that 
the 
defendant 
hild 
receivc d 
LI,e 
,;tllllll,on,; 
iln(1 
complaint. 
It Wil5 only on December 21, 1!:l!:l2, 20 t1.1Y:; 80[1.",: Lhe 
end of the In-escribed time period, thilt ThiJ:tl-P;-'l' Ly Pl ,dlltlff 
iatto l"l)e y's leCji\l 
ilssi s Lilnt 
resolved 
to cOlltact the 
l'O:;till 
l\serVice. 
Coincidentally, this was the same tlilY that U,e [ina 
'\ 
. 
! received 
the 
returned 
envelope. 
Thinl-rarty 
Plililltiff 
!\ attorney's fa ilu1"e to properly moni tor the sel'V i c c of proces:.; 
II over Lhe 120 day period amounted to a lack of tluc tlil i<)cllcc 01' 
" 
I I inadvel' tcnce. 
The leCJill assistant stated that:. the cnvelope \.:.1:; 
I i stampeu "rcason ched;ed ullclaimeu" incliciltinCJ l.hal: tile 'J"ltiru-
.1 
i! Party De-fendant chose not:. to accept the envelQl'c. 
'1'h i :;' :.. Liltn[l 
Ii 
II alone 
h Ol-levcr, docs not indicate an intcnti o n"J. eVil,.; i o ll o[ 
, 
;. 
i\process 
s ufficient· to · const.it.ute · good 
cul1~r. - '[01
00 (\'J Jay 
of 
II :: n service. 
Con~eCjuently, 'l'hit'd - ParLy Plilintiff I,;-,s not 
1' 1: Q '·/ide~1 
Ii this Court with "good c<luse" fOl' tile e xtension of the U mc \:0 
!I 
:: serve process"-' 
:1· 
. . 
. 
. 
: 
Tlll,rd- Party l'lillntlff: ar'Jues that. DOl") I "JUCll',; appca"illlCC 111 
iI 
:j 
~ \ 
I 
I , 
I , 
I 
I I 
I 
. :. 
SNITII liND 
~IU'l'lI vt 
1l,SS 
OII~ VIHGHI ISLAlIDS 
COHPORlI'l'ION, 
l!;'l' 
,,~ 
( 
CIVIL NO. 121/1992 
HEHORllNDUN OPINION AlII) OHDER 
PlIGl:: 9 
this uction by counsel evidences a l<lck of prejudicc. 
The Tllinl 
Circuit ill Dominic,I>upr<l, (lddressetl uClllul nol.icc illll! il}):;c llc e of 
!prejudice witllill tIle CO!ltext of a Hule 4(j) !llulio!) to di~misG. 
Tn Domini...£, "u HOJ.·};er lJL'ought a product liubi)iLy !;u.il uCpill!,.l 
the suppl ier of 
i\ solvent. 
"'hen Dominic (irr;l filcLl hi::; 
complaint iI'Juin:;t He,;z oil; 11c named a Julln Do.~ ·Corpol·;,U.on 
.~ : ; 
a codefendant on (Foulllls of stl:ict liu})iliLy. 
A YCill: liller, 
after Hess oil had CJ:osscl<limecl <l<]ainsl Shell on an jmlclllnity 
ag reelne> nt, Dornil1 ie Ollnencled his comp 1 u i 11 t Lo j !H.:) IIl k 
~;hL!l. I. 
'I'he 
Third Circuit COllrt of IIPpcOlls held lhat Lhe Lr .i ill COll!;t did not 
abuse its di5CL'etion in illlowing OOlldnic a(lt.3iLion011 
UIIIC 
Lo 
complete serv icc of pror.:css. 
The Court fOllnd tllut SI1(:ll hau 
actual notice of Lhe l'luintif('s cliliJn ilnd 5uffel:C:u 
IlO unuue 
i prejudicc. 
It noted thut lless Oil had sel"Vcd 
~;hcll 1;11:h the 
Ii original compluint and i\ claim (or indemnific,Il:.ioll. 
Thc COUI: t 
!! ulso noted thut Shell hud appeared be [ore Lhe Lli.:;tric:t com·t ut 
II approximately the same time that the umenuctl cOlllpl..,lnt \,'.):; 
II filcd. 
rinully, t.hc CoUt·t noted that thcre ",'a:; no evhlcllce 
.. • ! 
!! indicating 
lack 
of 
lliliCjence 
or 
inudvertcnce 
of 
cO\1115c1. 
'I \! Consequently, the Court iI[(inned Lhe Lriill CO\lI:t'5 Lleci:-.j,)n Lo 
" ,! \i extend the time limit to SCl.-ve process. 
Unli);c po",lnJ..£:, 
Ll1et"(~ 
\1 is some evidence herc indicating ' luck o[ 
<1u,~ 
dllirJC'/I'; '~ of 
Ii counsel. 
Thil-d-Purty P1ujnti[[z aLtol:ney's rai. l\l)"(~ Lc) m(I/litoL' 
:1 
!I thc 5el.-vicc of Pl."OCCSS ovel>lhclJn5 any clilim of .,,,LlI.)l lluti.CC ;lilt.! 
'j .. 
. 
' 
I I I 
SloJITlI liND SNI'J'I! v.' ·"ESS OIL VIHGIN ISLII1H)S 
( 
COHPOHlI'l'ION, 1;'1' ALl 
-
CIVIL NO. 721/1992 
NEHORANDUl-I OPINION 11110 OHDER 
PIIGE 10 
absence of prejudice. 
Unfortunately (or 1']<I .inti[(:;, l.he -'; Ol·C 
isslle in ~ervice of process disputes j:; pl<li.nti[('s di.ljrJ"·i1 C '~, 
Phil<1deljJhi<l LiUS"UOll, 123 F.n.D. 515 (E.D. 
I'll 19UU). 
Third-I'ilrty Plilintif(s <lIsa "rguc lhilt 
\ he 'rId n.l·-Pill"Ly 
Defendant should not b,mefit by having wilhh,}hl its o\.'j', c:t.i e>n to 
scrvice until ,,[tel" l.hl! )20 day period hild eJ.'psed. 
I hy.·,'c!V c r I 
Third-Party Defendilnl: is under no 0})li9"tion lo he) l' 'I'lc .i l:cl - l'ilrLy 
This Court re<llizes that the tlisml~sill of Lhe 'l'ld nl -
I ' ~'l:ty 
complaint agilinst GOl"inguen might Geem raLher h:\l":;h. 
1I00·: ,~ \'er, 
Rule 4(j) will no\: pel"mit this Court to iCjnol"e cOllllsel's l ;,-.; k or 
due diligence or inildvertellce. 
Moreover, Rule 4(j) 's prl Milry 
\ concern is the due diligence of 
'\ of the consequences. 
Sec Fl"iedman v. 
the plaintiff, 110t lhe ,;evcrity 
Estiltc or 
929 
F.2d 1151 (6th cil'. 1991) (complaint dismissecl under HuJ c '\ (j) 
despite fact that dislnissal mily render :;uit time b"rrcd) .