Filed: Feb. 11, 2020
Latest Update: Feb. 11, 2020
Summary: ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO FILE PROOF OF SERVICE OR SHOW CAUSE WHY THIS ACTION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO SERVE STANLEY A. BOONE , Magistrate Judge . Professional Solutions Insurance Company ("Plaintiff") filed this action on November 8, 2019, against John M. Cardot and Coleman & Horowitt LLP. (ECF No. 1.) On November 12, 2019, the summons issued and the order setting the mandatory scheduling conference was filed on November 14, 2019. (ECF Nos. 5, 6.) The order setting the ma
Summary: ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO FILE PROOF OF SERVICE OR SHOW CAUSE WHY THIS ACTION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO SERVE STANLEY A. BOONE , Magistrate Judge . Professional Solutions Insurance Company ("Plaintiff") filed this action on November 8, 2019, against John M. Cardot and Coleman & Horowitt LLP. (ECF No. 1.) On November 12, 2019, the summons issued and the order setting the mandatory scheduling conference was filed on November 14, 2019. (ECF Nos. 5, 6.) The order setting the man..
More
ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO FILE PROOF OF SERVICE OR SHOW CAUSE WHY THIS ACTION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO SERVE
STANLEY A. BOONE, Magistrate Judge.
Professional Solutions Insurance Company ("Plaintiff") filed this action on November 8, 2019, against John M. Cardot and Coleman & Horowitt LLP. (ECF No. 1.) On November 12, 2019, the summons issued and the order setting the mandatory scheduling conference was filed on November 14, 2019. (ECF Nos. 5, 6.)
The order setting the mandatory scheduling conference informed Plaintiff that they were to "diligently pursue service of the summons and complaint" and "promptly file proofs of the service." (ECF No. 6 at 1.) Plaintiff was referred to Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure regarding the requirement of timely service of the complaint. (Id. at 1-2.) Further, Plaintiff was advised that "[f]ailure to comply may result in the imposition of sanctions, including dismissal of unserved Defendants." (Id. at 2.) The order set the mandatory scheduling conference in this matter for February 18, 2020. (Id. at 1.)
Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure addresses the time requirements for service of the complaint in civil cases. Rule 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.
Here, more than ninety days have passed and Plaintiff has not filed proof that the complaint and summons have been served on Defendants.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Within three (3) days of the date of entry of this order, Plaintiff shall either a) file proof of service on the defendants in this action; or b) show cause in writing why this action should not be dismissed for failure to comply with Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure;
2. If Plaintiff fails to file a response to this order the Court shall recommend to the district judge that this action be dismissed for failure to prosecute;
3. The mandatory scheduling conference set for February 18, 2020, is continued to May 19, 2020 at 11:30 a.m. in Courtroom 9; and
4. The parties shall file a joint scheduling report seven (7) days prior to the continued scheduling conference.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
