The opinion of the court was delivered by: James F. Holderman, Chief Judge
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Before the court is defendant Dan Milovanovic's ("Milovanovic") Motion to Dismiss Counts II, IV, VI, VIII, X and XII of Plaintiffs' Complaint Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(5). (Dkt. No. 34). For the reasons discussed below, Milovanovic's motion is granted and Counts II, IV, VI, VIII, X and XII are dismissed without prejudice.
On July 5, 2005, plaintiffs Howard Brooks and Ronantoine Wilson ("Plaintiffs") filed a thirteen-count Complaint in the Circuit Court of Cook County against defendants Union Pacific Railroad ("Union Pacific") and Milovanovic (a Union Pacific police officer named in his individual capacity) alleging false imprisonment, assault, battery, defamation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligence, and malicious prosecution in connection with Plaintiffs' arrests on July 6, 2004 for alleged burglary of Union Pacific property. (Compl. ¶¶ 1, 10). The case was removed to federal court on August 29, 2005 on the basis of diversity of citizenship jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a).*fn1 (Notice of Removal at 1 (Dkt. No. 1)). Despite numerous filings by attorneys representing Plaintiffs and Union Pacific over several months, Milovanovic was not served with process in this case until July 6, 2006. Approximately three weeks later, on July 26, 2006, attorney Thomas Cushing ("Cushing") entered an appearance as counsel for Milovanovic and filed Defendant Dan Milovanovic's Motion to Dismiss Counts II, IV, VI, VIII, X and XII of Plaintiffs' Complaint Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(5). ("Motion to Dismiss" (Dkt. No. 34)). In his Motion to Dismiss, Milovanovic argues that he was not served with process within 120 days of the filing of the Complaint, as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m), and Plaintiffs' claims against him should therefore be dismissed. (Dkt. No. 34 ¶¶ 4, 7).
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m)*fn2 sets forth the time limit for service of process in the federal courts. Under this rule, it is the plaintiff's burden to demonstrate good cause for failing to execute service within the statutory time period. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m); Panaras v. Liquid Carbonic Indus. Corp., 94 F.3d 338, 341 (7th Cir. 1996) (citing Geiger v. Allen, 850 F.2d 330, 333 (7th Cir. 1988)). If the plaintiff meets this burden, the court must extend time for service of process. Panaras, 94 F.3d at 340. Good cause exists where there is "a valid reason for delay, such as the defendant's evading service." Coleman v. Milwaukee Bd. of Sch. Dirs., 290 F.3d 932, 934 (7th Cir. 2002).
Even when the plaintiff has not demonstrated good cause, the court may, in its discretion, either extend time for service of process or dismiss the action without prejudice. Panaras, 94 F.3d at 340. As the Seventh Circuit clarified in Panaras, it is the district court's duty to clearly consider the consequences to both parties in making this decision. Panaras, 94 F.3d at 341. Factors to consider include: whether the applicable statute of limitations would bar the refiled action, whether the defendant evaded service or concealed a defect in attempted service, whether granting an extension of time in which to serve the defendant would prejudice the defendant's ability to defend the lawsuit, whether the defendant had actual notice of the lawsuit, and whether the defendant was eventually served. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m), Advisory Committee Note, 1993 Amendments; Coleman, 290 F.3d at 934; Troxell v. Fedders of North America, Inc., 160 F.3d 381, 383 (7th Cir. 1998); Panaras, 94 F.3d at 341. Although the district court must inquire into these considerations, "the fact that the balance of hardships favors the plaintiff does not require the district judge to excuse the plaintiff's failure to serve the complaint and summons within the 120 days provided by the rule." Coleman, 290 F.3d at 934 (emphasis in original). The court retains discretion to determine the appropriate outcome after consideration of these factors.
Troxell, 160 F.3d at 383.
As a preliminary matter, the court finds that Plaintiffs failed to serve Milovanovic in a timely manner. The Complaint in this case was filed on July 5, 2005. Service was not effected upon Milovanovic until a year and a day later, on July 6, 2006. Because Milovanovic was not served with process until over one year after the filing of the Complaint, Plaintiffs failed to serve Milovanovic in accordance with the timeline of 120 days set forth in Rule 4(m). Plaintiffs appear to read Tuke v. United States, 76 F.3d 155, 157 (7th Cir. 1996), as granting them the entire statute of limitations period, plus 120 days, to serve Milovanovic, regardless of when the Complaint was actually filed. (Dkt. No. 37 at 3-4). This interpretation is erroneous and contrary to the plain language of Rule 4(m). In Tuke, the Seventh Circuit noted, "[a]lthough many states require service to be accomplished by the end of the statute of limitations, Rules 3 and 4(m) in combination give plaintiffs who sue under federal law the full period of limitations, plus 120 days, in which to achieve service." Tuke, 76 F.3d at 157. However, this generous time frame for service of process applies if, and only if, the plaintiff files his or her complaint on the last day of the statute of limitations and serves the defendant within 120 days, in accordance with Rule 4(m). Tuke in no way indicates that service of process is ever proper outside the parameters articulated in Rule 4(m), and Plaintiffs' assertion that they served Milovanovic in a timely manner is incorrect.
Having found that service of process on Milovanovic was untimely, the court must now address whether Plaintiffs have met their burden of demonstrating good cause for their failure to serve Milovanovic in accordance with the timeline set forth in Rule 4(m). Plaintiffs' first and only attempt to serve Milovanovic occurred in July of 2005.*fn3
Because Milovanovic worked as a police officer for Union Pacific, and Plaintiffs did not have his home address, they attempted to effect service upon him at Union Pacific's address. (Dkt. No. 37 at 1-2). Plaintiffs admit that Union Pacific accepted service on its own behalf, but rejected the attempt to serve Milovanovic. (Dkt. No. 37 at 2). Plaintiffs do not assert that they made any other attempt to serve Milovanovic, although they appear to have been on notice that their attempt at serving Milovanovic was unsuccessful. At the very least, Union Pacific's Answer of September 29, 2005 clearly stated that Milovanovic had not yet been served as of that time. (Dkt. No. 8 at 7-9, 12, 14, 16, 20). Plaintiffs still had ample time to serve Milovanovic with proper process, but failed to make any attempt to do so.
Plaintiffs' explanation for their failure to make further attempts to serve Milovanovic is that Union Pacific "failed to reveal" Milovanovic's address to them. (Dkt. No. 37 at 2). Federal courts require more than this type of half-hearted effort to serve defendants who are named in federal cases. In Geiger v. Allen, the plaintiff asked the defendant's former employer (and co-defendant) for the defendant's address, in addition to making "one fruitless inquiry to the Secretary of State." Geiger, 850 F.3d at 331, 333. The Seventh Circuit considered these efforts "less than diligent" and affirmed the district court's determination that the plaintiff had failed to show good cause, noting the plaintiff "was obligated to pursue alternative methods of finding and serving [the defendant]." Id. at 333-34. In this case, there is no indication that Plaintiffs ever even asked Union Pacific for Milovanovic's address. Additionally, it does not appear that Milovanovic was in any way difficult to find or serve. Cf. Coleman, 290 F.3d at 935 ("If a defendant is a natural person, the service of process is easy. It gets a bit more complicated when the defendant is a corporation. When the defendant is a governmental entity, the service of process can get very tricky.") (Evans, J., dissenting). Plaintiffs' statements in their Response reveal that, once they began the search for Milovanovic in earnest, it took at most seventeen days to effect service of process. (Dkt. No. 37 at 2 (alleged notice of need to serve Milovanovic occurred on June 20, 2006; service was successfully effected on July 6, 2006)). Plaintiffs' approach of waiting for Union Pacific to supply them with Milovanovic's information, while doing nothing to follow-up on their defective service of process, does not represent the kind of diligence required by Rule 4(m), and Plaintiffs have not demonstrated good cause for their lack of initiative.
Plaintiffs argue that their negligence in delaying service on Milovanovic should be excused because Union Pacific's counsel failed to state that he was not also representing Milovanovic. (Dkt. No. 37 at 2). Plaintiffs do not point to any specific instances wherein Union Pacific's counsel claimed to represent Milovanovic, and the court can find no such indication in the federal record.*fn4 While counsel is required by Local Rule 83.16 to file an appearance before this court, counsel's duty is fulfilled upon indicating the name of the defendant he is representing; he has no affirmative duty to note defendants whom he does not represent. Plaintiffs do not allege, and the court can find no ...