Reported / Citable
Background
Alma Gamez and other plaintiffs, represented by counsel, sued Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Basim Alaboodi, and Doe defendants in state court in February 2026. Wells Fargo removed the case to the Northern District of Texas on March 19, 2026.
At removal, Alaboodi had not been served. More than 90 days after removal, the plaintiffs had neither shown that they served Alaboodi nor offered good cause for the delay.
The Court’s Holding
Magistrate Judge Rebecca Rutherford recommended that the district judge dismiss the claims against Alaboodi without prejudice. In a removed case, a plaintiff who did not complete service in state court has 90 days from removal to serve the defendant under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m).
The magistrate judge concluded that the plaintiffs’ failure to timely serve Alaboodi violated Rule 4(m) and amounted to a failure to prosecute under Rule 41(b). The recommendation allowed the plaintiffs to avoid dismissal by submitting proof of proper service or showing good cause before the deadline to object to the recommendation.
Key Takeaways
- The Rule 4(m) service period runs from removal when service was not completed in state court.
- Failure to serve an individual defendant within that period can support dismissal without prejudice.
- The magistrate judge issued a recommendation; the district judge had not yet entered the proposed dismissal.
Why It Matters
The recommendation underscores that removal does not indefinitely extend the time to serve defendants who were unserved in state court. Counsel must track the 90-day federal service deadline after removal and promptly document service or seek relief based on good cause.