BECK et al v. FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION
ORDER granting 8 Motion to Dismiss. Ordered by US DISTRICT JUDGE CLAY D LAND on 10/27/2017. (CCL)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
CHARLES W. BECK and ANNETTE S.
CASE NO. 3:17-CV-29 (CDL)
FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE
O R D E R
Plaintiffs Charles W. Beck and Annette S. Beck, who are
proceeding pro se, brought this action against Defendant Federal
National Mortgage Association (“Fannie Mae”) alleging a claim
Plaintiffs filed their action in the Superior Court of Madison
Though Plaintiffs did not serve Fannie Mae
with a Summons and a copy of the Complaint, Fannie Mae learned
objections based on service and personal jurisdiction.
Plaintiffs filed several documents with the Court, including a
motion and some discovery materials, Plaintiffs never filed a
proof of service establishing that they served Fannie Mae with
the Summons and a copy of the Complaint.
Fannie Mae filed a
motion to dismiss for insufficient process under Federal Rule of
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(5).1
not respond to the motion or present any evidence to establish
that they properly served Fannie Mae.
Accordingly, Fannie Mae’s
motion to dismiss (ECF No. 8) is granted.
“A summons must be served with a copy of the complaint.”
Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c).
“The plaintiff is responsible for having
the summons and complaint served within the time allowed by Rule
4(m) . . . .”
Where, as here, the defendant is not served
before removal, the plaintiff must perfect service within 90
days after the notice of removal is filed.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m).
28 U.S.C. § 1448;
“Service of process is a jurisdictional
requirement: a court lacks jurisdiction over the person of a
defendant when that defendant has not been served.”
Warden, FCC Coleman-USP, 259 F. App’x 181, 183 (11th Cir. 2007)
(per curiam) (quoting Pardazi v. Cullman Med. Ctr., 896 F.2d
1313, 1317 (11th Cir. 1990)).
If a defendant is not timely
prejudice against that defendant or order that service be made
within a specified time.”
Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m).
Fannie Mae also moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). The Court may not reach the
merits of this case because, as discussed below, the Court does not
have personal jurisdiction over Fannie Mae.
See Jackson v. Warden,
FCC Coleman-USP, 259 F. App'x 181, 183 (11th Cir. 2007) (per curiam)
(finding that it was error for the district court to reach the merits
of a case where the plaintiff did not serve the defendants properly).
This action was removed on February 13, 2017.
Plaintiffs should have served Fannie Mae with the Summons and
Complaint by May 14, 2017.
Plaintiffs never filed a proof of
service to establish that they served Fannie Mae.
respond to Fannie Mae’s motion to dismiss.
They did not
And they did not
show good cause for their failure to serve Fannie Mae at any
time during the more than 250 days this action has been pending
in this Court.
For these reasons, the Court concludes that it
does not have jurisdiction over Fannie Mae, and this action is
dismissed without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED, this 27th day of October, 2017.
S/Clay D. Land
CLAY D. LAND
CHIEF U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
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?