Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Zagorsky-Beaudoin v. Rhino Entertainment Company, CV-18-03031-PHX-JAT. (2019)

Court: District Court, D. Arizona Number: infdco20190412723 Visitors: 5
Filed: Apr. 11, 2019
Latest Update: Apr. 11, 2019
Summary: ORDER JAMES A. TEILBORG , Senior District Judge . This Court previously ordered: " IT IS ORDERED confirming that all Defendants not yet served must by served by March 25, 2019, and Plaintiff should not anticipate any extensions of this deadline. 1 " (Doc. 78 (footnote in original)). In that same order, at Plaintiff's request, the Court ordered that Defendant John Cosenza would be served by the U.S. Marshals. ( Id. ). As of March 25, 2019, Plaintiff has not served: John Cosenza, Slacker In
More

ORDER

This Court previously ordered: "IT IS ORDERED confirming that all Defendants not yet served must by served by March 25, 2019, and Plaintiff should not anticipate any extensions of this deadline.1" (Doc. 78 (footnote in original)). In that same order, at Plaintiff's request, the Court ordered that Defendant John Cosenza would be served by the U.S. Marshals. (Id.).

As of March 25, 2019, Plaintiff has not served: John Cosenza, Slacker Inc., Brilliant Digital Entertainment Inc., Heartland Music.com, and Import CDs, Inc. Plaintiff noted in her April 5, 2019 filing2 (Doc. 112 at 5), "As for Judge Teilborg's intent to "dismiss" "without prejudice" Slacker, Inc., Brilliant Digital Entertainment Inc., Heartland Music.com and Import CD, Inc., Plaintiff did not object because her attempts to serve these Co-Defendants by March 25, 2019 were unsuccessful." Thus, the Court will dismiss these Defendants, without prejudice. As for Defendant John Cosenza, the Court will take no action at this time because Plaintiff returned a service packet for this Defendant for the U.S. Marshal to serve on March 14, 2019, and the Court has not yet learned the result of the Marshal's attempt(s).

Thus,

IT IS ORDERED dismissing Defendants Slacker Inc., Brilliant Digital Entertainment Inc., Heartland Music.com, and Import CDs, Inc., without prejudice for failure to serve within the time limits of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m), as extended.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion for extension of time (Doc. 115) is granted such that Plaintiff shall respond to the motions to dismiss filed by Defendants MySpace Music, LLC (Doc. 101) and Pandora Media Inc. (Doc. 102) by April 29, 2019.

FootNotes


1. On the Court's cursory review of the record, there is no evidence of service on file for: John Cosenza, Apple Inc., Slacker Inc., Brilliant Digital Entertainment Inc., Heartland Music.com, and Import CDs, Inc.
2. Plaintiff called this filing an "objection." Previously, this Court interpreted Plaintiff's prior "objection" (Doc. 90) as a motion for reconsideration (Doc. 103). In this current "objection", Plaintiff levies accusations against the Court regarding her filing at Doc. 90, stating: "Judge Teilborg deceptively mentions a "Motion for Reconsideration" (Doc.103, pg. 3 at 14) — which is a false cover up of the "truth" of Plaintiff's "OBJECTION" below: Plaintiff never filed a motion for reconsideration. (Doc. 90). Court staff illegally altered the docket index without Plaintiff's permission...." An "objection" is not a means under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or the Civil Local Rules for the District of Arizona, of seeking relief before this Court. However, Plaintiff clearly opposes any interpretation of her filing that would entitled it to consideration. Thus, while the Court notes the filing at Doc. 112 seeks certain relief, the Court will take no action on it because any request embedded therein was not presented in a procedurally appropriate manner.
Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer