Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Childs v. Guardian Alarm

United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division

March 28, 2017

Glenn V. Childs, Plaintiff,
v.
Guardian Alarm and Nemer Group Gulleria Officentre, Defendants.

          David R. Grand United States District Court Judge

          OPINION AND ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS [6] AND DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION [14] AS MOOT

          GERSHWIN A. DRAIN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.

         I. Introduction

         On November 28, 2016, pro se Plaintiff Glenn Childs filed a complaint against “Guardian Alarm” and “Nemer Group Gulleria Officentre”[1] (collectively, “Defendants”), alleging violations of Title VII and various other state and common law claims. Dkt. No. 1.

         Presently before the Court is Defendants' Motion to Dismiss [6], 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.

         For the reasons discussed below, both motions are DENIED.

         II. Legal Standard

         Federal 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 association:

         Unless 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 individual; or

(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).

         Rule 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.

         It is 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)).

         III. ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.