Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

HUDSON SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY v. BROWN, 5:15-CV-352-BO. (2016)

Court: District Court, E.D. North Carolina Number: infdco20160601b66 Visitors: 7
Filed: May 31, 2016
Latest Update: May 31, 2016
Summary: ORDER TERRENCE W. BOYLE , District Judge . This cause comes before the Court on a joint response to the Court's order and motion to amend proof of service and/or extend time for service. DISCUSSION By order entered May 6, 2016, the Court directed plaintiff to show cause why defendant Eric Brown should not be dismissed from this action due to plaintiffs failure to effect proper service. In response, plaintiff and defendants request that plaintiff be permitted to amend proof of service as t
More

ORDER

This cause comes before the Court on a joint response to the Court's order and motion to amend proof of service and/or extend time for service.

DISCUSSION

By order entered May 6, 2016, the Court directed plaintiff to show cause why defendant Eric Brown should not be dismissed from this action due to plaintiffs failure to effect proper service. In response, plaintiff and defendants request that plaintiff be permitted to amend proof of service as to defendant Eric Brown to reflect that Eric Brown intended to and did voluntarily accept service of the summons and complaint in this action on August 25, 2015.

The request to amend is denied. The acceptance of service filed by the parties which purports to reflect proper service in this matter on Eric Brown reflects that Eric Brown accepted service on May 10, 2015. [DE 29-5]. The complaint in this action was not filed until July 23, 2015, and thus proper service could not have been effected on Eric Brown prior to that time. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c).

However, since entry of the Court's order, an attorney has noticed an appearance on behalf of Eric Brown. [DE 28]. Although in the absence of the Court's leave to file out of time defendant Eric Brown would likely be found to be in default as his answer in this matter has been stricken, the Court declines to consider this issue in light of the resolution of this matter reached by the parties and plaintiffs effort to reduce this matter to judgment.

CONCLUSION

The joint motion [DE 29] is DENIED. The parties shall have fourteen days from the date of entry of this order to re-file with proper signatures their joint motion for entry of consent judgment.

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