United States District Court, D. Nevada
GLORIA M. NAVARRO, Chief District Judge.
This action was filed by pro se Plaintiff Gail Holland, who seeks judicial review of a denial of benefits pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(1)(B). (Compl., Ex. A to Removal Notice, ECF No. 1-1). Pending before the Court is the Motion to Dismiss, (ECF No. 4), filed by Defendant HSBC North America ("HSBC"). (ECF No. 4). Ms. Holland filed a Response in opposition to the Motion, (ECF No. 8), and HSBC filed a Reply, (ECF No. 9).
On October 1, 2013, Ms. Holland filed this action in Clark County District Court. (Compl.). Her Complaint states, in its entirety:
COMES NOW the Petitioner, Gail Holland, a resident of Clark County Nevada, appearing in proper person in the above entitled action, and hereby petitions this Court for judicial review of the Decision and Order of the Benefits Admin. Committee dated January 9, 2013, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit 1. This Petition for Judicial Review is filed pursuant to ERISA Section 502c,  which provides for judicial review of contested Employee Benefits cases in accordance with the provisions of NRS 233B. Petitioner alleges that the decision of Benefits Administrative Committee was wrong in using the deferred pension benefit table in determining petitioners [sic] retirement benefit. Petitioner believes the agency should and must use the standard pension benefit table in this case.
( Id. ). An exhibit attached to the Complaint shows that Ms. Holland attempted to serve process upon HSBC on October 2, 2013, by sending a copy of the Complaint to HSBC's address in Mettawa, Illinois via certified mail. (Ex. B to Removal Notice at 11). HSBC removed this case on November 1, 2013, citing this Court's jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. (Removal Notice 2:6-10).
In the instant Motion, HSBC requests that the Complaint be dismissed for inadequate process and for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(4) and 12(b)(6). (Mot., ECF No. 4). For the reasons discussed herein, the Court will grant the Motion and dismiss Ms. Holland's Complaint without prejudice.
II. LEGAL STANDARD
A. Inadequate Process
A challenge to the form of process, rather than the manner of its service, is properly raised under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(4). See, e.g., Wasson v. Riverside County, 237 F.R.D. 423, 424 (C.D. Cal.2006) (citations omitted). A Rule 12(b)(4) motion challenges noncompliance with the provisions of Rule 4 or any applicable provision incorporated by Rule 4(b) that deals specifically with the content of a summons. Id.
Under Rule 4, a summons must:
(A) name the court and the parties;
(B) be directed to the defendant;
(C) state the name and address of the plaintiff's attorney or-if ...