Background
Nancy Levine alleged that an unidentified employee sprayed a COVID-19 aerosol disinfectant near her at a Yankee Candle store on December 30, 2020, causing multiple injuries. She filed a Maryland negligence action against Yankee Candle and a Jane Doe employee almost three years later, with one day remaining in the limitations period.
Levine failed to serve either defendant during two successive 60-day summons periods. After the state-court clerk issued a notice of contemplated dismissal under Maryland Rule 2-507, Levine attributed the delays to a computer hack, an email routed to counsel’s junk folder, and difficulty accessing documents. The state court reserved the dismissal issue, reissued the summons with a warning, and Levine then served Yankee Candle approximately eight months after filing suit.
Yankee Candle removed the case to federal court and sought dismissal for untimely service. The district court dismissed the complaint without prejudice, finding insufficient diligence, an unjustified delay, and equities favoring dismissal. Levine appealed.
The Court’s Holding
The Fourth Circuit affirmed. It held that the district court properly applied Maryland law to assess the validity of service completed before removal. Under Maryland Rule 2-507, diligence is the primary consideration, and the district court did not clearly abuse its discretion by relying on Levine’s eight-month delay, her failure to make meaningful service efforts, and inconsistencies in counsel’s explanation.
The court rejected Levine’s contention that Yankee Candle had to prove specific substantial prejudice. Maryland law permits dismissal for an unjustified and lengthy service delay without such a showing. The court also held that the Full Faith and Credit Act did not bar dismissal because the Maryland court had reserved, rather than finally decided, whether dismissal or Levine’s eventual service was proper.
Levine’s additional appellate arguments were forfeited because she had not presented them to the district court. She did not establish that declining to consider those new arguments would cause a miscarriage of justice.
Key Takeaways
- The validity of service completed before removal is determined under the law of the state in which service occurred.
- An unjustified eight-month service delay and lack of diligent service efforts supported dismissal under Maryland Rule 2-507.
- Full faith and credit did not apply because the state court reserved the dismissal question and issued no final determination entitled to preclusive effect.
- Arguments not raised in the district court ordinarily are forfeited on appeal absent exceptional circumstances.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that removal does not cure deficient or untimely pre-removal service. A federal court may apply the originating state’s service rules and dismiss when the plaintiff cannot demonstrate adequate diligence.
It also clarifies that a state court’s procedural decision to reserve an issue is not a final ruling that binds the federal court under full-faith-and-credit principles.