Joe Hand Promotions, Inc v. Parlavecchio et al
Filing
36
OPINION (See Written Opinion): For the reasons stated, Plaintiff's Objections (d/e 35) are GRANTED and the Report and Recommendation (d/e 34) is REJECTED. Plaintiff is given leave to serve summons on DJT's agent. This matter is referred back to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings. Entered by Judge Sue E. Myerscough on 8/10/2011. (VM, ilcd)
E-FILED
Wednesday, 10 August, 2011 04:23:31 PM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
SPRINGFIELD DIVISION
JOE HAND PROMOTIONS, INC.,
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
v.
MARC PARLAVECCHIO, et al.,
Defendants.
No. 10-3294
)
OPINION
This cause is before the Court on a Report and Recommendation (d/e 34)
and Plaintiff’s Objections to the Court’s Report and Recommendation (Objections)
(d/e 35).
FACTS
On February 16, 2011, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint against
Defendants Jim Drewes, Tammy Drewes, Daniel Osborne, and DJT Fieldhouse,
Inc. (DJT). Summonses were issued and served upon the three individual
Defendants, but summons was not issued as to DJT.
On June 8, 2011, the U.S. Magistrate Judge entered a text order directing
Plaintiff to take action to move the case forward as to the individual Defendants
who had been served, and to file a written status report by July 20, 2011 as to DJT
to show cause why the case should not be dismissed as to DJT for want of
prosecution. Plaintiff partially complied with that order by filing a Motion for
Page 1 of 4
Entry of Default Judgment against the individual Defendants. However, Plaintiff
failed to file the written status report as directed or take steps to perfect service on
DJT.
In a July 21, 2011 Report and Recommendation, the Magistrate Judge
recommended Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint be dismissed for want of
prosecution as to DJT only. On August 8, 2011, Plaintiff filed its Objections,
stating that “[d]ue to a docketing error, Plaintiff believed Defendant DJT
Fieldhouse, Inc. was served with the Amended Complaint and Summons, however,
it was actually the original Defendant, The Field House, Inc.” Plaintiff noted it had
filed its Motion for Entry of Default Judgment as to the individual Defendants but
never served summons on DJT due to the docketing error. According to the
Objections, Plaintiff has been attempting to locate the registered agent for DJT and
recently discovered that the corporation is no longer in business. Plaintiff requests
the Court grant Plaintiff 7 days to issue a Summons to corporate “Defendant DJT
Fieldhouse, Inc. c/o Daniel Osborne, one of its agents.”
ANALYSIS
This Court reviews de novo any part of the Report and Recommendation to
which a proper objection has been made. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C);
Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b). Upon review of the Report and Recommendation, this Court
may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition, receive further
evidence, or recommit the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions. See 28
Page 2 of 4
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(3).
While the Court does not condone Plaintiff’s apparent inattentiveness to
these proceedings, Plaintiff did take timely action to move the case along as to the
individual Defendants as directed by the Magistrate Judge when Plaintiff filed its
Motion for Entry of Default as to the individual Defendants. Moreover, Plaintiff
has indicated it had been trying to serve DJT but only recently discovered the
corporation is no longer in business.
Under these circumstances, the Court will grant Plaintiff’s Objections to the
Report and Recommendation and give Plaintiff leave to issue a summons “to
Defendant, DJT Fieldhouse, Inc., c/o Daniel Osborne, one of its agents” within 7
days. The Court notes that this is the second recent case in which instant counsel
has filed an objection to a report and recommendation that recommended dismissal
for want of prosecution. See G & G Closed Circuit Events, LLC v. DJT
Fieldhouse, Inc., et al., No. 3016 (C.D. Ill. (August 8, 2011)). Plaintiff’s counsel is
admonished that in the future he must be more attentive to the docket1 and follow
1
In both G & G Closed Circuit Events, LLC and the present case, Plaintiff’s delay in
prosecuting the case was blamed, at least in part, on unspecified docketing errors. However, the
failure to file the status report as directed in the present case cannot be blamed on such an error.
Plaintiff was able to follow the Magistrate Judge’s direction in the July 8, 2011, text order to
move the case along and filed a Motion for Entry of Default against the individual Defendant’s.
That same text order contained the Magistrate Judge’s direction to file the status report by July
20, 2011, and to show cause why the case against DJT should not be dismissed for want of
prosecution.
Page 3 of 4
the directions of the Court.2
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated, Plaintiff’s Objections (d/e 35) are GRANTED and
the Report and Recommendation (d/e 34) is REJECTED. Plaintiff is given leave
to serve summons on DJT’s agent. This matter is referred back to the Magistrate
Judge for further proceedings.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
ENTERED: August 10, 2011.
FOR THE COURT:
s/ Sue E. Myerscough
SUE E. MYERSCOUGH
UNITED STATE DISTRICT JUDGE
2
The fact Plaintiff was having trouble locating the registered agent for DJT and just
discovered the corporation is no longer in business is exactly the type of information that the
Magistrate Judge would have found useful had Plaintiff followed the Magistrate Judge’s
direction to file a status report and to show cause why the case should not be dismissed for want
of prosecution as to DJT.
Page 4 of 4
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?