United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
K. Majzoub United States Magistrate Judge.
ORDER DENYING AS MOOT PLAINTIFFS' REQUEST TO
EXCEED PAGE LIMIT  AND ORDERING PLAINTIFFS TO SHOW CAUSE
WHY SUMMONS SHOULD BE EXTENDED
Gershwin A. Drain United States District Court Judge.
September 2, 2016, Sandra and Mitchell Pletos
(“Plaintiffs”) commenced the instant action
against nine defendants. Dkt. No. 1. In their Complaint,
Plaintiffs allege violations of the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act, Michigan Regulation of Collection Practices
Act, Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, and
other claims. Id. at 6-28 (Pg. ID No. 6-28). This
case has been pending for more than three months and was just
recently reassigned with three motions pending, two of which
are dispositive. See Dkt. No. 9, 13, 16, 24.
pending dispositive motions are scheduled for hearing in
March 2017. In this Order, the Court will address
Plaintiffs' Ex Parte Motion to Extend Summons  and
Plaintiffs' Request to Exceed Page Limit .
Motion to Extend Service
December 1, 2016, Plaintiffs filed an Ex Parte Motion for
First Extension of Time to Serve Summons and Complaint. Dkt.
No. 16. Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
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.
Civ. P. 4(m). “Although the rule by its express
language provides that the court ‘shall' dismiss an
action when service is not effected within  days, it also
provides some flexibility in that it allows a court to choose
not to dismiss but rather to extend the service time when
good cause is shown.” United States v. Ninety
Three Firearms, 330 F.3d 414, 426 (6th Cir. 2003).
determining whether to grant an extension, the Court should
consider the following factors: (1) whether a significant
extension of time is required; (2) whether an extension of
time would prejudice the defendant other than the inherent
prejudice in having to defend the suit; (3) whether the
defendant had actual notice of the lawsuit; (4) whether a
dismissal without prejudice would substantially prejudice the
plaintiff; i.e., would her lawsuit be time-barred; and (5)
whether the plaintiff has made good faith efforts at
effecting proper service of process. Slenzka v.
Landstar Ranger, Inc., 204 F.R.D. 322, 326 (E.D. Mich.
the pleading submitted by Plaintiffs, it is not possible for
the Court to decipher whether every defendant had actual
notice of the lawsuit and whether good faith efforts at
effecting proper service of process were made. Accordingly,
the Court hereby ORDERS Plaintiffs to
SHOW CAUSE why time for service of the
Summons and First Amended Complaint should be extended.
Request to Exceed Page Limit
December 15, 2016, Plaintiffs requested a 15-page extension
to the 25-page limit for briefs. Dkt. No. 26 (Pg. ID No.
1094). Since that filing, Plaintiffs have submitted a
response that complies with the Local Rule restricting brief
length to 25 pages. See Dkt. No. 28. Accordingly,
the Court DENIES Plaintiffs' request
 as moot.
requests should be made in accordance with this Court's
Chamber Practice Guidelines. (“Extensions of the page
limit set forth in Local Rule 7.1 may be obtained by the
filing of an ex parte motion, which may be granted if the
request for additional pages is warranted and
reasonable.”). However, parties should note that the
Court is not in the habit of granting such large extensions
to the page limits, absent good cause.
it is necessary to remind all parties that they are required
to comply with the Eastern District of Michigan Local Rules.
This includes Rule 5.1(a)(3), which requires all papers
submitted to the Court to be in 14 point type size for all
text and all footnotes.[1 ...