Bradford Paul Goodman; Peter Wesley Goodman v. Heat and Frost Insulators and Allied Workers Local 82;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
BRADFORD PAUL GOODMAN; PETER
WESLEY GOODMAN,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
HEAT AND FROST INSULATORS AND
ALLIED WORKERS LOCAL 82; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 18-35145
D.C. No. 2:17-cv-00010-TOR
MEMORANDUM*
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).
FILED
NOV 26 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 18-35145
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 of 2 --