FERRANTE v. COUNTY OF MONMOUTH, 16-3496 (MLC). (2016)
Court: District Court, D. New Jersey
Number: infdco20161123g59
Visitors: 13
Filed: Nov. 22, 2016
Latest Update: Nov. 22, 2016
Summary: OPINION MARY L. COOPER , District Judge . THE PLAINTIFFS brought this action in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Monmouth County, alleging federal and state causes of action against the State of New Jersey and the New Jersey Motor Vehicle Commission ("State Defendants"), the County of Monmouth and the Monmouth County Prosecutor's Office ("Monmouth County Defendants"), the Manasquan Board of Education and Manasquan High School ("Manasquan Defendants"), and The Patch, an online news website
Summary: OPINION MARY L. COOPER , District Judge . THE PLAINTIFFS brought this action in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Monmouth County, alleging federal and state causes of action against the State of New Jersey and the New Jersey Motor Vehicle Commission ("State Defendants"), the County of Monmouth and the Monmouth County Prosecutor's Office ("Monmouth County Defendants"), the Manasquan Board of Education and Manasquan High School ("Manasquan Defendants"), and The Patch, an online news website...
More
OPINION
MARY L. COOPER, District Judge.
THE PLAINTIFFS brought this action in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Monmouth County, alleging federal and state causes of action against the State of New Jersey and the New Jersey Motor Vehicle Commission ("State Defendants"), the County of Monmouth and the Monmouth County Prosecutor's Office ("Monmouth County Defendants"), the Manasquan Board of Education and Manasquan High School ("Manasquan Defendants"), and The Patch, an online news website. (Dkt. 1-1.) The action was removed to this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. (Dkt. 1.)
THE PLAINTIFFS were previously notified that they had not demonstrated that Defendant The Patch was served in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m). (Dkt. 22 at 3 n.2.)
THE COURT ordered Plaintiffs to show cause to explain whether all claims against Defendant The Patch should be dismissed without prejudice for failure to serve The Patch within ninety days of filing the Complaint as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m). (Dkt. 21.)
THE PLAINTIFFS have not responded to the Court's Order to Show Cause and have not voiced any objection to such a dismissal.
Therefore, the Court will dismiss the Complaint against Defendant The Patch without prejudice. For good cause appearing, the Court will enter an appropriate order and judgment.
Source: Leagle
