The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hillman, District Judge
This matter concerns a dispute regarding accounting services provided to plaintiffs by defendants over several years. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss arguing that plaintiffs did not comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) by serving the summons and complaint within 120 days from the date of filing of the complaint, and that this Court cannot exercise personal jurisdiction over the defendants because they do not have the requisite "minimum contacts" with the State of New Jersey. Plaintiffs have moved for an extension of time for service of the summons and complaint as well as for jurisdictional discovery and an evidentiary hearing.
Plaintiffs' motion for an extension of time to serve the complaint will be granted, but its request for jurisdictional discovery and an evidentiary hearing will be denied. Although the Court agrees with defendants that the minimum contacts with New Jersey do not exist and, therefore, this Court cannot exercise personal jurisdiction over the defendants in this matter, plaintiffs' complaint will not be dismissed. Rather, the case shall be transferred to the United States District Court for the District of Arizona.
Plaintiffs filed a complaint on July 6, 2011 alleging that this Court could exercise subject matter jurisdiction on grounds of complete diversity between the parties. On July 13, 2011, this Court determined sua sponte that the citizenship of the parties was improperly plead and issued an order directing plaintiffs to properly plead the citizenship of all the parties. On July 25, 2011, plaintiff filed an amended complaint pursuant to the Court's Order. No summons was requested or issued for the amended complaint until November 17, 2011. The amended complaint and summons were served on defendants on November 22, 2011, 139 days after the filing of the initial complaint. Defendants seek to dismiss plaintiffs' amended complaint.
"[I]t is well established that the trial court has inherent power and jurisdiction to decide whether it has jurisdiction." In re Automotive Refinishing Paint Antitrust Litigation, 358 F.3d 288, 303 (3d Cir. 2004) (citing Ins. Corp. of Ireland, Ltd. v. Compagnie des Bauxites de Guinee, 456 U.S. 694, 102 S.Ct. 2099 (1982)).
The plaintiff states that this Court exercises subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (diversity). Plaintiffs are citizens of the State of New Jersey. Individual defendants Charles M. Estes, Jane Doe Estes, Richard F. Avellone and Jane Doe Avellone are citizens of the State of Arizona. Defendant Cleveland Estes Avellone, PLLC has one member, defendant Charles M. Estes, who is a citizen of Arizona. Defendant Estes/Avellone CPA's, Ltd., f/k/a Estes/Avellone, Ltd., is incorporated in Arizona with its principal place of business in Arizona. Defendant Charles M. Estes, P.C. f/k/a Estes, Mangel, & Company, P.C. is incorporated in Arizona with its principal place of business in Arizona. Plaintiff alleges that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.00, exclusive of interest and costs.
Defendants allege that this Court does not have jurisdiction because the complaint was not timely served and, if timely served, the Court cannot exercise personal jurisdiction. While the Court will extend the time for service of the complaint, the minimum contacts needed to exercise personal jurisdiction over the defendants does not exist and, therefore, this matter will be transferred.
A. Standard for Dismissal Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(5) (Insufficiency of Service of Process)
Since "[t]he failure of a plaintiff to obtain valid process from the court to provide it with personal jurisdiction over the defendant in a civil case is fatal to the plaintiff's case," Ayres v. Jacobs & Crumplar, P.A., 99 F.3d 565, 569 (3d Cir. 1996), it must first be determined whether the complaint was properly served. If the complaint was not properly served, the action may be dismissed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(5) for insufficient service of process. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(5).
Plaintiff, the party responsible for effecting service, has the burden of proof to demonstrate validity of service. Grand Entm't Group, Ltd. v. Star Media Sales, Inc., 988 F.2d 476, 488 (3d Cir. 1993). Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(m) provides the time frame a plaintiff has to serve a defendant with the summons and copy of the complaint. The rule provides:
If the service of the summons and complaint is not made upon a defendant within 120 days after the filing of the complaint, the court, upon motion or on its own initiative after notice to the plaintiff, shall dismiss the action without prejudice as to that defendant or direct that service be effected within a specified time; provided that if the plaintiff shows good ...