ORDER GRANTING IN PART PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL TIME TO SERVE SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT; GRANTING IN PART THE REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE OPPOSITION; AND DENYING REQUEST TO WAIT TO FILE A CONSOLIDATED RESPONSE (ECF No. 78)
ERICA P. GROSJEAN, Magistrate Judge.
The Court has before it Plaintiff's Request for Time to Serve Summons & Complaint; Request for Extension of Time to File Opposition; and Request for Permission to File a Consolidated Response (ECF No. 78).
Plaintiff, Madhu Sameer, proceeding pro se, commenced this action on December 26, 2017, against 30 defendants. (ECF No. 1.) On April 26, 2018, and April 30, 2018, Plaintiff filed requests to effect substituted service of process upon eight of the defendants, including the "Khera Defendants," consisting of Sameer Khera and Snehal Devani, husband and wife, and their businesses, Healthy Masala and Devine Arts & Entertainment. (ECF No. 24, 26.) The Court denied these requests on May 2, 2018, providing Plaintiff with guidance regarding the requirements for service under the applicable rules. (ECF No. 38.) On June 15, 2018, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint (ECF No. 59), which was dismissed by the court on June 21, 2018 (ECF No. 69). On June 20, 2018, Plaintiff filed a renewed request to effect substituted service of process upon the Khera Defendants. (ECF No. 68.) The Court denied that request. (ECF No. 77.) On July 1, 2018, Plaintiff filed her Second Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 72.) On July 7, 2018, Defendant Michael Millen filed a motion to dismiss and motion for more definite statement. (ECF No. 76.) On July 9, 2018, Plaintiff filed the motion currently before the Court requesting additional time to serve three defendants that she has added to her Second Amended Complaint, additional time to serve the Khera Defendants, additional time to respond to Defendant Millen's motion to dismiss, and a request that she be allowed to delay filing any response to any motion to dismiss now filed or to be filed in the future so that she can file a consolidated response to all of the motions to dismiss. (ECF No. 78.)
A. Request for Additional Time to Serve Newly Added Defendants
Plaintiff requests that she be provided with an additional 90 days to serve three additional defendants that she added to the action in her Second Amended Complaint. The Court refers Plaintiff to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m), which states that a plaintiff must serve a defendant within 90 days after the complaint is filed. If, as Plaintiff represents, the three defendants were first named in the Second Amended Complaint, and were not previously listed as defendants in Plaintiff's prior complaints, the time to serve those three defendants did not begin to run until Plaintiff filed her Second Amended Complaint. To the extent Plaintiff seeks time beyond the 90 days allowed by Rule 4(m) to serve these three new defendants, her request will be denied as she does not provide any explanation as to why she needs additional time.
B. Request for Additional Time to Serve the Khera Defendants
Plaintiff also requests additional time to serve the Khera Defendants, but does not specify how much additional time she requests. Plaintiff contends that these defendants continue to evade service. As the Court noted in its order denying Plaintiff's motion for substituted service (see ECF No. 68, 77), Plaintiff has not provided any information to the Court that indicates the Khera Defendants are actively evading service. Nonetheless, the Court will grant Plaintiff an additional thirty (30) days to serve the Khera Defendants.
C. Request for Additional Time to Respond to Defendant Millen's Motion to Dismiss
Defendant Millen filed a motion to dismiss on July 7, 2018 (ECF No. 75). Plaintiff requests an extension of time to December 15, 2018, to file her response to this motion to dismiss. While the Court sympathizes with the difficulties Plaintiff discusses in her request for additional time, the amount of additional time Plaintiffs requests to file her response is far beyond what the Court deems to be reasonable. The Court finds that an additional thirty (30) days provides Plaintiff with sufficient time to respond to Defendant Millen's motion to dismiss and will accordingly grant Plaintiff an additional thirty (30) days from the date of this order.
D. Request to Delay and Consolidate Response to Any Motion to Dismiss Now Filed or to be Filed in the Future
In addition to and connected to the extension of time Plaintiff requests to respond to Defendant Millen's motion to dismiss, Plaintiff also requests that she be allowed to delay filing any response to motions to dismiss now filed or to be filed in the future until all motions to dismiss have been filed, and that she be allowed to file a single consolidated response to both the pending motion and the anticipated motions to dismiss. Plaintiff contends that this approach will be optimal and would ensure judicial economy. Plaintiff also expresses various concerns based on her history with some of the defendants.
While the Court appreciates that Plaintiff believes her suggested approach would save judicial resources and be more convenient and efficient, the Court disagrees with that approach. It was Plaintiff's choice to sue such a large number of defendants and Plaintiff must bear the consequences of that choice, or can choose to limit her claims and/or the number of defendants. Plaintiff is required to respond to any motions to dismiss, or any other motions, as they are filed and in the time required by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, unless otherwise specifically ordered by the Court.
Plaintiff may, however, reference earlier pleadings in her responses to the extent she has already addressed a point. Further, Plaintiff or any party may contact District Judge Drozd to request that a single hearing be set for all pending motions to dismiss.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED:
Plaintiff's request for additional time beyond that allowed under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to serve newly added defendants is DENIED.
Plaintiff's request for additional time to serve the Khera Defendants is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Plaintiff is granted an additional thirty (30) days from the date of this order to serve the Khera Defendants. The request is otherwise DENIED.
Plaintiff's request for additional time to respond to Defendant Millen's motion to dismiss is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Plaintiff is granted an additional thirty (30) days from the date of this order to file her response to Defendant Millen's motion to dismiss. Plaintiff's request is otherwise DENIED.
Plaintiff's request to delay and consolidate her response to any motion to dismiss now filed or to be filed is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
