United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
Glenn V. Childs, Plaintiff,
Guardian Alarm and Nemer Group Gulleria Officentre, Defendants.
R. Grand United States District Court Judge
OPINION AND ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE
DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS  AND DENYING
PLAINTIFF'S MOTION  AS MOOT
GERSHWIN A. DRAIN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
November 28, 2016, pro se Plaintiff Glenn Childs
filed a complaint against “Guardian Alarm” and
“Nemer Group Gulleria Officentre” (collectively,
“Defendants”), alleging violations of Title VII
and various other state and common law claims. Dkt. No. 1.
before the Court is Defendants' Motion to Dismiss ,
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(5).
Plaintiff filed a response, Dkt. No. 10, and Defendants filed
a reply, Dkt. No. 11. Plaintiff filed a Motion seeking
discovery on March 24, 2017. Dkt. No. 14. The Court held a
hearing on March 27, 2017. The hearing was scheduled for 2:00
p.m. and commenced at 2:26 p.m. after waiting for Plaintiff
to arrive. Plaintiff failed to attend the hearing.
reasons discussed below, both motions are
Rule of Civil Procedure 4(c)(1) requires service of both a
copy of the complaint and the summons, and Rule 4(m) requires
service within 90 days after the complaint is filed. Rule
4(h) governs service of a corporation, partnership, or
federal law provides otherwise or the defendant's waiver
has been filed, a domestic or foreign corporation, or a
partnership or other unincorporated association that is
subject to suit under a common name, must be served:
(1) in a judicial district of the United States:
(A) in the manner prescribed by Rule 4(e)(1) for serving an
(B) by delivering a copy of the summons and of the
complaint to an officer, a managing or general agent, or
any other agent authorized by appointment or by law to
receive service of process and-if the agent is one
authorized by statute and the statute so requires-by also
mailing a copy of each to the defendant; or
Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(h).
4(m) states that “[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.” Fed.R.Civ.P.
4(m). Where the plaintiff shows good cause for his or her
failure to timely serve, the court is to extend the service
time for an appropriate period. Id.
the plaintiff's burden to show that good cause exists.
See Friedman v. Estate of Presser, 929 F.2d 1151,
1157 (6th Cir. 1991). While a defendant's intentional
evasion of service of process provides good cause, a
plaintiff's “inadvertent failure or half-hearted
efforts to serve a defendant within the statutory period does
not constitute good cause.” Id. “Actual
notice and lack of prejudice to the defendant are likewise
insufficient to establish good cause.” Slenzka v.
Landstar Ranger, Inc., 204 F.R.D. 322, 324 (E.D. Mich.
2001) (citing Moncrief v. Stone, 961 F.2d 595,
596-97 (6th Cir. 1992)).