PROBAR, LLC v. ONEBODY, 2:14-cv-166-FtM-38CM. (2014)
Court: District Court, M.D. Florida
Number: infdco20140829l68
Visitors: 8
Filed: Aug. 26, 2014
Latest Update: Aug. 26, 2014
Summary: ORDER 1 SHERI POLSTER CHAPPELL, District Judge. This matter comes before the Court on the Plaintiff, Probar, LLC's Response to the Court's Order to Show Cause ( Doc. #9 ) filed on August 25, 2014. On August 21, 2014, the Court directed Probar to show cause why it had failed to effect service of process on the Defendant within the 120 day time limit found in the Federal Rules. Probar now responds that it is in settlement negotiations with the Defendant and at the time believed the case would
Summary: ORDER 1 SHERI POLSTER CHAPPELL, District Judge. This matter comes before the Court on the Plaintiff, Probar, LLC's Response to the Court's Order to Show Cause ( Doc. #9 ) filed on August 25, 2014. On August 21, 2014, the Court directed Probar to show cause why it had failed to effect service of process on the Defendant within the 120 day time limit found in the Federal Rules. Probar now responds that it is in settlement negotiations with the Defendant and at the time believed the case would s..
More
ORDER1
SHERI POLSTER CHAPPELL, District Judge.
This matter comes before the Court on the Plaintiff, Probar, LLC's Response to the Court's Order to Show Cause (Doc. #9) filed on August 25, 2014. On August 21, 2014, the Court directed Probar to show cause why it had failed to effect service of process on the Defendant within the 120 day time limit found in the Federal Rules. Probar now responds that it is in settlement negotiations with the Defendant and at the time believed the case would settle before the service deadline expired. Probar still believes the case will settle and requests an additional sixty (60) days to effect service of process while the settlement negotiations continue.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) reads in pertinent part:
If a defendant is not served within 120 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.
Probar moves the Court to enlarge the deadline to effect service by sixty (60) days. Given that the parties are in settlement negotiations and the case may be resolved without further involvement by the Court, there is good cause to grant the extension of time.
Accordingly, it is now
ORDERED:
The Plaintiff, Probar, LLC's Response to the Court's Order to Show Cause and Motion for an Extension of Time to Effect Service of Process is (Doc. #9) is GRANTED.
(1) Probar has up to and including October 27, 2014, to effect service of process on the Defendant.
(2) No further action is required by the Plaintiff, Probar, LLC on the Order to Show Cause.
DONE and ORDERED.
FootNotes
1. Disclaimer: Documents filed in CM/ECF may contain hyperlinks to other documents or Web sites. These hyperlinks are provided only for users' convenience. Users are cautioned that hyperlinked documents in CM/ECF are subject to PACER fees. By allowing hyperlinks to other Web sites, this court does not endorse, recommend, approve, or guarantee any third parties or the services or products they provide on their Web sites. Likewise, the court has no agreements with any of these third parties or their Web sites. The court accepts no responsibility for the availability or functionality of any hyperlink. Thus, the fact that a hyperlink ceases to work or directs the user to some other site does not affect the opinion of the court.
Source: Leagle
