KOLASINSKI v. CITIMORTGAGE, INC., 2:11-CV-01548-KJD-VCF. (2012)
Court: District Court, D. Nevada
Number: infdco20120126825
Visitors: 9
Filed: Jan. 24, 2012
Latest Update: Jan. 24, 2012
Summary: ORDER KENT J. DAWSON, District Judge. Plaintiff's Complaint was filed in Nevada state court on August 2, 2011. On October 24, 2011, the Court quashed service (#7) for Plaintiff's failure to abide by Nevada Rule of Civil Procedure 4. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) requires service of summons and complaint to be made upon a defendant 120 days after the filing of the complaint. The 120 day time period for effecting service of the summons and complaint upon Defendants expired no later than D
Summary: ORDER KENT J. DAWSON, District Judge. Plaintiff's Complaint was filed in Nevada state court on August 2, 2011. On October 24, 2011, the Court quashed service (#7) for Plaintiff's failure to abide by Nevada Rule of Civil Procedure 4. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) requires service of summons and complaint to be made upon a defendant 120 days after the filing of the complaint. The 120 day time period for effecting service of the summons and complaint upon Defendants expired no later than De..
More
ORDER
KENT J. DAWSON, District Judge.
Plaintiff's Complaint was filed in Nevada state court on August 2, 2011. On October 24, 2011, the Court quashed service (#7) for Plaintiff's failure to abide by Nevada Rule of Civil Procedure 4. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) requires service of summons and complaint to be made upon a defendant 120 days after the filing of the complaint. The 120 day time period for effecting service of the summons and complaint upon Defendants expired no later than December 2, 2011. On December 29, 2011, the Court ordered Plaintiff to file proof of service of the summons and complaint no later than January 17, 2012 and warned Plaintiff that failure to respond would result in the dismissal of her complaint.
Though the time for doing so has passed, Plaintiff has failed to file proof of timely service of the summons and complaint or to otherwise respond to the Court's order. Therefore, the Court dismisses Plaintiff's complaint without prejudice against the Defendants for failure to serve Defendants in compliance with Rule 4(m). The Clerk of the Court is ordered to close this case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
