SAINI v. PENN MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, 16-CV-1724-JPS. (2017)
Court: District Court, E.D. Wisconsin
Number: infdco20170426g75
Visitors: 6
Filed: Apr. 25, 2017
Latest Update: Apr. 25, 2017
Summary: ORDER J.P. STADTMUELLER , District Judge . On December 30, 2016, this matter was removed to this Court. (Docket #1). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) provides: If a defendant is not served within 90 days after the complaint is filed, the court—on motion or on its own after notice to the plaintiff—must dismiss the action without prejudice against that defendant or order that service be made within a specified time. But if the plaintiff shows good cause for the failure, the court must ex
Summary: ORDER J.P. STADTMUELLER , District Judge . On December 30, 2016, this matter was removed to this Court. (Docket #1). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) provides: If a defendant is not served within 90 days after the complaint is filed, the court—on motion or on its own after notice to the plaintiff—must dismiss the action without prejudice against that defendant or order that service be made within a specified time. But if the plaintiff shows good cause for the failure, the court must ext..
More
ORDER
J.P. STADTMUELLER, District Judge.
On December 30, 2016, this matter was removed to this Court. (Docket #1). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) provides:
If a defendant is not served within 90 days after the complaint is filed, the court—on motion or on its own after notice to the plaintiff—must dismiss the action without prejudice against that defendant or order that service be made within a specified time. But if the plaintiff shows good cause for the failure, the court must extend the time for service for an appropriate period.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). The ninety-day deadline expired on March 30, 2017. See Cardenas v. City of Chicago, 646 F.3d 1001, 1004 (7th Cir. 2011) (Rule 4(m)'s service deadline applies in removal cases from the date of removal). Plaintiff has not provided any proof of service for Defendants William J. Howard or Daniel Rooney. The Court will therefore require that, within fourteen (14) days of the entry of this Order, Plaintiff must provide evidence of service or otherwise explain why good cause exists to extend the Rule 4(m) deadline. Failure to do so will result in dismissal of those Defendants without prejudice and without further notice. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m).
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that, within fourteen (14) days of the entry of this Order, Plaintiff must provide evidence of service or otherwise explain why good cause exists to extend the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) deadline for service as to Defendants William J. Howard and Daniel Rooney.
Source: Leagle
