SAMS v. GA WEST GATE, LLC, CV415-282. (2016)
Court: District Court, S.D. Georgia
Number: infdco20160725678
Visitors: 8
Filed: Jul. 22, 2016
Latest Update: Jul. 22, 2016
Summary: ORDER WILLIAM T. MOORE, Jr. , District Judge . Before the Court is Plaintiffs' Motion to Drop Defendants American Housing Foundation and Michelle Abdoo Pursuant to Plaintiffs' Notice of Dismissal. (Doc. 80.) According to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m), "[i]f 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
Summary: ORDER WILLIAM T. MOORE, Jr. , District Judge . Before the Court is Plaintiffs' Motion to Drop Defendants American Housing Foundation and Michelle Abdoo Pursuant to Plaintiffs' Notice of Dismissal. (Doc. 80.) According to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m), "[i]f 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 ..
More
ORDER
WILLIAM T. MOORE, Jr., District Judge.
Before the Court is Plaintiffs' Motion to Drop Defendants American Housing Foundation and Michelle Abdoo Pursuant to Plaintiffs' Notice of Dismissal. (Doc. 80.) According to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m), "[i]f 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." Defendants American Housing Foundation1 and Michelle Abdoo have not been served in this case. Accordingly, Plaintiffs' motion (Doc. 80) is GRANTED and Defendants American Housing Foundation and Michelle Abdoo are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
SO ORDERED.
FootNotes
1. Defendant American Housing Foundation has filed for bankruptcy, which resulted in the imposition of an automatic stay. (Doc. 80 at 2.) However, "the purposes of the Bankruptcy Code [a]re in no way infringed by the dismissal by a plaintiff of a case against the bankrupt without any additional cost or risk to the bankrupt or its creditors." Slay v. Living Ctrs. East, Inc., 249 B.R. 807, 807 (S.D. Ala. 2000) (quoting Chase Manhattan Bank, N.A. v. Celotex Corp., 852 F.Supp. 226, 228 (S.D.N.Y. 1994)).
Source: Leagle
