Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Smith v. General Motors Company, 5:16-cv-283-DPM. (2017)

Court: District Court, E.D. Arkansas Number: infdco20170823722 Visitors: 8
Filed: Aug. 22, 2017
Latest Update: Aug. 22, 2017
Summary: ORDER D.P. MARSHALL, Jr. , District Judge . 1. Though it is almost a year old, this case is stalled. The Court appreciates the status reports from the Smiths and Highland. No 38 & 39. The complaint was filed in September 2016, naming General Motors Company, Takata Corporation, TK Holdings, Inc., and Highland Industries, Inc. No 1. No one has ever appeared or responded for General Motors. Counsel for Highland, TK Holdings, and Takata Corporation appeared and sought an extension to respo
More

ORDER

1. Though it is almost a year old, this case is stalled. The Court appreciates the status reports from the Smiths and Highland. No 38 & 39. The complaint was filed in September 2016, naming General Motors Company, Takata Corporation, TK Holdings, Inc., and Highland Industries, Inc. No 1. No one has ever appeared or responded for General Motors. Counsel for Highland, TK Holdings, and Takata Corporation appeared and sought an extension to respond. Ng 4. After much motion practice to clean up the complaint, the Court dismissed Highland and TK Holdings in April 2017. No 35.

2. On Takata. The Court notes that, in June 2017, TKHoldings filed for bankruptcy in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware. In re TK Holdings, Inc., No. 17-11375-BLS (Chapter 11). Takata Corporation made a similar filing in the same Court two months later. In re Takata Corporation, No.17-11713-BLS (Chapter15). Those cases continue. The Smiths have filed papers about service last fall, in October 2016 to be precise, on "Takata Restraint Systems Inc." No 39-1. This sounds like a Takata-related entity, but one that is not a named defendant in this case. Given the murky record on timely service, and the bankruptcy proceedings, the Court will dismiss Takata Corporation without prejudice unless the Smiths give reasons not to do so-with documentary support—by 31 August 2017.

3. On GM. The Smiths' proof of service needs shoring up. The Smiths must promptly provide the Court with several things: a copy of the summons to GM; information from the Secretary of State about the registered agent in Arkansas for General Motors Company; and some document showing that the complaint and the summons were sent to GM. The Smiths should also address the apparent delivery of the General Motors mail to "CT Corporation," rather than "The Corporation Company." Status report on the GM service issues also due by 31 August 2017.

So Ordered.

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