Filed: Feb. 06, 2020
Latest Update: Feb. 06, 2020
Summary: ORDER JAMES C. MAHAN , District Judge . Presently before the court is the matter of Veal v. Uber Technologies, Inc., et al., case no. 2:19-cv-02194-JCM-EJY. Cyrus Veal ("plaintiff") filed the instant action on September 25, 2019, against Uber Technologies, Inc. ("Uber") and James Rivers Insurance Company ("James River"). (ECF No. 1-2). James River timely removed the case on December 20, 2019. (ECF No. 1). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) provides as follows: If a defendant is not se
Summary: ORDER JAMES C. MAHAN , District Judge . Presently before the court is the matter of Veal v. Uber Technologies, Inc., et al., case no. 2:19-cv-02194-JCM-EJY. Cyrus Veal ("plaintiff") filed the instant action on September 25, 2019, against Uber Technologies, Inc. ("Uber") and James Rivers Insurance Company ("James River"). (ECF No. 1-2). James River timely removed the case on December 20, 2019. (ECF No. 1). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) provides as follows: If a defendant is not ser..
More
ORDER
JAMES C. MAHAN, District Judge.
Presently before the court is the matter of Veal v. Uber Technologies, Inc., et al., case no. 2:19-cv-02194-JCM-EJY. Cyrus Veal ("plaintiff") filed the instant action on September 25, 2019, against Uber Technologies, Inc. ("Uber") and James Rivers Insurance Company ("James River"). (ECF No. 1-2). James River timely removed the case on December 20, 2019. (ECF No. 1).
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) provides as follows:
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. This subdivision (m) does not apply to service in a foreign country under Rule 4(f), 4(h)(2), or 4(j)(1), or to service of a notice under Rule 71.1(d)(3)(A).
Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m).
More than 90 days have elapsed since the instant action was filed in state court. James River indicated that "[n]o affidavit of service ha[d] been filed for Uber Technologies, Inc." at the time of removal. (ECF No. 1 at 2). To date, plaintiff has still not served Uber.
Consequently, plaintiff is instructed to show cause why his claims against Uber should not be dismissed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m) within seven (7) days of this order.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that plaintiff shall SHOW CAUSE why this matter should not be dismissed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. within seven (7) days of this order.
