MOORHEAD v. HARLEYSVILLE PREFERRED INSURANCE COMPANY, 2:15-cv-789-FtM-38MRM. (2016)
Court: District Court, M.D. Florida
Number: infdco20160328827
Visitors: 10
Filed: Mar. 24, 2016
Latest Update: Mar. 24, 2016
Summary: ORDER 1 SHERI POLSTER CHAPPELL , District Judge . This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiffs Maureen Moorhead and Mark Moorhead's Response to the Order to Show Cause and Motion to Seek Additional Time to Perfect Service of Process Upon the Defendant Nunc Pro Tunc (Doc. #7) filed on March 23, 2016. On March 21, 2016, the Court ordered Plaintiffs to show cause why the Complaint should not be dismissed for failure to effect service within the 90-day period allowed under Rule 4(m) of
Summary: ORDER 1 SHERI POLSTER CHAPPELL , District Judge . This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiffs Maureen Moorhead and Mark Moorhead's Response to the Order to Show Cause and Motion to Seek Additional Time to Perfect Service of Process Upon the Defendant Nunc Pro Tunc (Doc. #7) filed on March 23, 2016. On March 21, 2016, the Court ordered Plaintiffs to show cause why the Complaint should not be dismissed for failure to effect service within the 90-day period allowed under Rule 4(m) of ..
More
ORDER1
SHERI POLSTER CHAPPELL, District Judge.
This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiffs Maureen Moorhead and Mark Moorhead's Response to the Order to Show Cause and Motion to Seek Additional Time to Perfect Service of Process Upon the Defendant Nunc Pro Tunc (Doc. #7) filed on March 23, 2016.
On March 21, 2016, the Court ordered Plaintiffs to show cause why the Complaint should not be dismissed for failure to effect service within the 90-day period allowed under Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Doc. #5). In response, Plaintiffs advised that personal health-related matters initially arrested their ability to prosecute this suit. However, as of March 21, 2016, Plaintiffs announced that they are ready and able to proceed and served Defendants with the Summons and Complaint. (Doc. #7 at ¶ 7).2 Plaintiffs, therefore, move this Court to grant them leave to serve the Summons and Complaint nunc pro tunc.
Based on Plaintiffs' representations in their Response to the Order to Show Cause, the Court finds that they are now actively prosecuting this case. Thus, the Court will take no further action on its Order dated March 21, 2016. In addition, the Court finds good cause to grant Plaintiffs' request to serve the Summons and Complaint nunc pro tunc.
Accordingly, it is now
ORDERED:
(1) The Court will take no further action on its Order (Doc. #5) dated March 21, 2016.
(2) The Court GRANTS Plaintiffs' Motion to Seek Additional Time to Perfect Service of Process Upon the Defendant Nunc Pro Tunc (Doc. #7). Plaintiffs shall file a return of service on or before March 28, 2016.
DONE and ORDERED.
FootNotes
1. Disclaimer: Documents filed in CM/ECF may contain hyperlinks to other documents or websites. 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 websites, this Court does not endorse, recommend, approve, or guarantee any third parties or the services or products they provide on their websites. Likewise, the Court has no agreements with any of these third parties or their websites. 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.
2. Plaintiffs state that they have attached a copy of the Affidavit of Service is to the Response to Order to Show Cause as Exhibit "A" (Doc. #7 at ¶ 13), but the attachment was not filed on the docket.
Source: Leagle
