(caption unavailable)

*Local Rule 47.5 provides: "The publication of opinions that have no precedential value
and merely decide particular cases on the basis of well-settled principles of law imposes
needless expense on the public and burdens on the legal profession." Pursuant to that Rule,
the Court has determined that this opinion should not be published.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
For the Fifth Circuit
No. 92-5547
PACIFIC INTERNATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
VERSUS
WILLIAM T. JOHNSTON, et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
For the Western District of Texas
SA 91 CV 714
March 26, 1993
Before WIENER, BARKSDALE, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Background
Appellant, Pacific International Insurance Company, filed suit
on July 12, 1991, in the United States District Court for the
Western District of Texas against William Johnston, Margaret
Johnston, and Endicott-Sherwood, Inc. (as the alter ego of the
Johnstons), on three promissory notes each in the amount of Fifty

-- 1 of 4 --

2
Thousand Dollars ($50,000.00). Three days after it filed suit,
appellant mailed three summons with copies of the complaint to the
Johnstons at their home in New Jersey. All three return receipt
records were returned signed by William Satterthwaite, Mrs.
Johnston's father. On July 22, 1991, an attorney for the Johnstons
advised appellant by telephone that the Johnstons would not accept
or acknowledge mail service. Realizing that under Rule 4 the
Johnstons could properly refuse service by mail, appellant
attempted personal service on them by a deputy sheriff in the
county in New Jersey where their home is located. This summons was
returned unserved, and the sheriff's department stated that they
were unserved because the Johnstons had moved. Appellant then
obtained additional summons and complaints and forwarded them to a
private process server in New Jersey named Martin Smethy. Smethy
claims that on August 20, 1991, he personally served the summons
and complaints on a man standing at the door of the Johnston house
whom he believed to be Mr. Johnston. The Johnstons dispute this
with affidavit testimony that on the date in question they were
out-of-town.
Appellant filed a motion for default judgment on September 17,
1991, assuming that it had properly effected service. In response,
the Johnstons filed a motion to dismiss and a motion to quash
service contending that they had not been served. Seeing that the
Johnstons were going to challenge service, appellant again
contacted Smethy and on October 10 Smethy again attempted personal
service on the Johnstons. On December 3, 1991, the trial court

-- 2 of 4 --

3
quashed the service of process which occurred on August 20 but
found good cause to extend the time limit under Rule 4(j) in order
to allow plaintiff to serve its complaint in accordance with the
district court's order. The district court concluded its order
with the following language:
Plaintiff shall provide proof of proper
service of its complaint on or before January
3, 1992. Failure to do so will result in
dismissal of this cause without prejudice.
Thereafter appellant mailed summons to the Johnstons' counsel
but the counsel claimed he was not authorized to accept service for
them and this attempted service was quashed by the court.
Appellant then again contacted Mr. Smethy who attempted service on
the Johnstons at their home on January 3, 1992. Smethy claims that
he saw a man through the window of the Johnstons' house but that he
could never get anyone to come to the door and accept service of
process and so he finally left the complaint and citation by the
front door. On January 15, 1992, appellant filed a motion for
service on the Johnstons to be deemed effective but the district
court denied this motion, and instead granted the Johnstons' motion
to quash the attempted service of January 3 and then dismissed
appellant's suit under Rule 4(j) finding that "good cause has not
been showed for counsel's failure to effect proper service."
Appellant timely appeals this ruling.
Discussion
We review a trial judge's rulings on Rule 4(j) matters under
an abuse of discretion standard. Wei v. State of Hawaii, 763 F.2d
370, 371 (9th Cir. 1985). As the district court found good cause

-- 3 of 4 --

4
for the delay based on the occurrences predating its order of
December 3, 1991, which granted Pacific 30 days within which to
provide proof of proper service, we are concerned here only with
what occurred SQ or did not occur SQ between December 3, 1991, and
January 3, 1992.
Cases in this circuit have equated good cause with "excusable
neglect" and have noted that "inadvertence or mistake of counsel or
ignorance of the rules usually does not suffice" and that "some
showing of good faith and a reasonable basis for noncompliance
within the time specified" is necessary to show good cause.
Winters v. Teledyne, 776 F.2d 1304 (5th Cir. 1985.) The district
court in this case gave appellants an extension of time to effect
the proper service of process and to file proof thereof on or
before January 3, 1992, and warned that failure to do so by that
date would result in dismissal without prejudice. Regretfully for
appellant, it did not achieve valid service of process, much less
file proof of such service, by the specified deadline.
We are not persuaded that the district court abused its
discretion in dismissing the case without prejudice for failure to
achieve service of process. See McDonald v. United States of
America, 898 F.2d 466 (5th Cir. 1990).
We therefore AFFIRM the dismissal by the district court.

-- 4 of 4 --