M. Thora Worrell v. B.F. Goodrich Company

Good Law
845 F.2d 840·1988 WL 37707·10 Fed. R. Serv. 3d 1356·1988 U.S. App. LEXIS 5631
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitApril 27, 198886-2788California696 words

Opinion

Opinion

Skopil, J.

Thora Worrell appeals pro se the district court’s order dismissing her Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b) action. She contends the district court erred in not granting her request for a default judgment. We affirm.

DISCUSSION

Worrell commenced this action by filing an amended complaint seeking relief under Rule 60(b) from a 1978 judgment. Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(c)(2)(C)(ii), she sent a copy of the complaint and summons, with a notice and acknowledgment of service, by certified mail to Goodrich’s attorney. The. attorney signed the acknowledgment and mailed it back to Worrell within the twenty, days specified by that rule.

Worrell thereafter twice sought default judgments, claiming that Goodrich failed to file a responsive pleading to her complaint within the twenty-day period provided by Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(a). The clerk refused to enter default judgments since the twenty-day response time provided by Rule 12(a), when measured from the date Goodrich’s attorney signed the acknowledgment, had not expired. Worrell contends that Rule 12(a)’s twenty-day response period begins on the date of receipt of the complaint and summons by counsel. Thus we must decide whether Goodrich’s motion to dismiss,…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.