Smith et al v. General Motors Company et al
ORDER: The Court appreciates the status reports from the Smiths and Highland, 38 & 39 . Given the murky record on timely service, and the bankruptcy proceedings, the Court will dismiss Takata Corporation without prejudice unless the Smiths give reasons not to do so - with documentary support - by 8/31/2017. Status report on the GM services issues due by 8/31/2017. Signed by Judge D. P. Marshall Jr. on 8/22/2017. (jak)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
PINE BLUFF DIVISION
MAEOLA SMITH and
GENERAL MOTORS COMPANY,
an American Multinational Corporation;
and TAKATA CORPORATION, a
1. Though it is almost a year old, this case is stalled. The Court
appreciates the status reports from the Smiths and Highland. Ng 38 & 39. The
complaint was filed in September 2016, naming General Motors Company,
Takata Corporation, TK Holdings, Inc., and Highland Industries, Inc. Ng 1.
No one has ever appeared or responded for General Motors. Counsel for
Highland, TK Holdings, and Takata Corporation appeared and sought an
extension to respond. Ng 4. After much motion practice to clean up the
complaint, the Court dismissed Highland and TK Holdings in April 2017.
2. On Takata. The Court notes that, in June 2017, TKHoldings filed for
bankruptcy in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of
Delaware. In re TK Holdings, Inc., No. 17-11375-BLS (Chapter 11). Takata
Corporation made a similar filing in the same Court two months later. In re
Takata Corporation,No.17-11713-BLS (Chapter15). Those cases continue. The
Smiths have filed papers about service last fall, in October 2016 to be precise,
on "Takata Restraint Systems Inc." NQ 39-1. This sounds like a Takata-related
entity, but one that is not a named defendant in this case. Given the murky
record on timely service, and the bankruptcy proceedings, the Court will
dismiss Takata Corporation without prejudice unless the Smiths give reasons
not to do so-with documentary support-by 31August2017.
3. On GM. The Smiths' proof of service needs shoring up. The Smiths
must promptly provide the Court with several things: a copy of the summons
to GM; information from the Secretary of State about the registered agent in
Arkansas for General Motors Company; and some document showing that
the complaint and the summons were sent to GM. The Smiths should also
address the apparent delivery of the General Motors mail to "CT
Corporation," rather than "The Corporation Company." Status report on the
GM service issues also due by 31August2017.
D.P. Marshall Jf.
United States District Judge
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?