Aren Tau v. Virginia Employment Commission ( 2022 )

USCA4 Appeal: 22-1821 Doc: 19 Filed: 12/19/2022 Pg: 1 of 2
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 22-1821
AREN TAU,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
VIRGINIA EMPLOYMENT COMMISSION; PARKVIEW FEDERAL CREDIT
UNION; COMMONWEALTH ONE FEDERAL CREDIT UNION,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Alexandria. Rossie David Alston, Jr., District Judge. (1:22-cv-00308-RDA-IDD)
Submitted: December 15, 2022 Decided: December 19, 2022
Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and WILKINSON and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Aren Tau, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-1821 Doc: 19 Filed: 12/19/2022 Pg: 2 of 2
PER CURIAM:
Aren Tau appeals the district court’s order dismissing his amended civil complaint
without prejudice under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). In June 2022, the district court ordered Tau
to show cause why his action should not be dismissed for failure to serve Defendants. In
July 2022, the district court concluded that, because Tau had not served Defendants and
his response failed to address the service issue, it must dismiss the action under Rule 4(m).
However, “under Rule 4(m), a district court possesses discretion to grant the plaintiff an
extension of time to serve a defendant with the complaint and summons even absent a
showing of good cause by the plaintiff for failing to serve the defendant during the 90-day
period provided by the Rule.” Gelin v. Shuman, 35 F.4th 212, 220 (4th Cir. 2022).
Because it is not clear that the court recognized that discretion, we vacate the
dismissal order and remand so that the court can “consider in the first instance . . . whether
[it] should exercise its discretion to extend the time for serving” Defendants. Id. We deny
Tau’s emergency motion for a temporary restraining order and for discovery, motion for
assignment of counsel, and motion to reconsider the order deferring action on those
motions. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
VACATED AND REMANDED
2