Canopius Capital Two Limited et al v. Jeanne Estates Apartments, Inc. et al

Filing 157

ORDER directing Plaintiffs to submit proof of service as to Steve Johnson and Steve Johnson d/b/a The Cooker or show cause why claims against these separate defendants should not be dismissed. Signed by Honorable Susan O. Hickey on February 4, 2016. (mll)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS TEXARKANA DIVISION CANOPIUS CAPITAL TWO LIMITED, et al VS. PLAINTIFFS CASE NO. 11-CV-4070 JEANNE ESTATES APARTMENTS, INC., et al DEFENDANTS ORDER On August 19, 2015, Plaintiffs filed their Third Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 136). Following the filing of the Third Amended Complaint, Plaintiffs filed an Amended Motion for Summary Judgment. (ECF No. 143). In each of these filings, Plaintiffs’ certificate of service indicates that the papers were electronically served to the other parties in this case, either through the CM/ECF system or by e-mail. However, Separate Defendants Steve Johnson and Steve Johnson d/b/a The Cooker are proceeding pro se in this case (ECF No. 74), and the Court is unaware of any consent by Steve Johnson to receive electronic service. There is nothing on the docket to indicate that Plaintiffs have served these Separate Defendants via the P.O. Box address listed for Steve Johnson in the Court’s CM/ECF system. The Court directs Plaintiffs to submit their proof of service as to these Separate Defendants on or before Tuesday, February 9, 2016. If service of the filings mentioned above was never completed upon these Separate Defendants, Plaintiffs are hereby ordered to show cause why the claims against these Separate Defendants should not be dismissed for failure to effectuate service and/or failure to prosecute. IT IS SO ORDERED, this 4th day of February, 2016. /s/ Susan O. Hickey Susan O. Hickey 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?