United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit No. 20‐2017 KIRK C. JONES, Plaintiff‐Appellant,

v.

KEVIN RAMOS, et al., Defendants‐Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana, South Bend Division. No. 3:19‐cv‐00166‐DRL‐MGG — Damon R. Leichty, Judge.

ARGUED JANUARY 19, 2021 — DECIDED SEPTEMBER 3, 2021

Before ROVNER, HAMILTON, and ST. EVE, Circuit Judges. ROVNER, Circuit Judge. The district court dismissed this personal injury case without prejudice for failure to timely serve the summons and complaint on the defendants. Because the plaintiff had filed the suit only two days short of the limitations period, this ruling effectively ended the litigation. We find no abuse of discretion in the district court’s decision, and so we affirm. 2 No. 20‐2017

This diversity suit arose from an automobile accident that occurred on October 28, 2016. The plaintiff, Jones, was a passenger in an Uber car owned by Jerilyn Langwith and driven by Daniel Waterhouse. That car was struck by a second vehicle owned by Mario Ramos and driven by Kevin Ramos. Uber and those four individuals are the defendants. Although the accident occurred in Indiana, the Ramos defendants are citizens of New Jersey. Jones, who was injured in the accident, filed suit in federal court in New Jersey on October 26, 2018, two days before the applicable statute of limitations was due to run. After the plaintiff’s attorney failed to effect service of the summons and complaint on any of the defendants within the ninety‐day period prescribed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the New Jersey court issued a Notice of Call for Dismissal Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(m) (“Notice”) on Febru‐ ary 5, 2019. The Notice warned that the suit would be dis‐ missed on March 5, 2019 unless the plaintiff established that service was effected within the ninety‐day period by filing proof of service before the March 5 return date. On March 5, 2019, instead of providing proof of service or attempting to serve the summons and complaint on the defendants, Jones’s counsel filed a motion to change venue to the Northern District of Indiana, asserting that the Uber driver, a citizen of Indiana, was not subject to personal jurisdiction in New Jersey. The New Jersey district court granted that motion, and directed Jones to serve a copy of the venue order on the defendants within five days. The plaintiff’s counsel served the venue order on the defendants but still did not serve the summons and complaint. Three months later, on June 10, 2019, Waterhouse moved to dismiss the case on two grounds: first, No. 20‐2017 3 under Rule 12(b)(5), for failure to timely serve the summons and complaint as set forth in Rule 4(m); and second, under Rule 12(b)(6), for failing to properly commence the case within the statute of limitations.1 Nine days later, new counsel for Jones entered an appearance in the Indiana district court, and the next day began the process of serving the summons and complaint on all of the defendants. Ultimately, the summons and complaint was served on all of the defendants between June 21 and June 27, 2019, between 238 to 244 days after the filing of the complaint. Within weeks, Uber and Langwith joined Waterhouse’s motion to dismiss, and on August 12, 2019, the Ramos defendants filed their own motion seeking dismissal for the same reasons given by Waterhouse. Jones asked the court to exercise its discretion to deny the motion to dismiss, noting that all defendants had now been served, and asserting that none of the defendants were prejudiced by the delay. Jones pointed out that the defendants were aware of the litigation within days of the ch