Lozanovski v City of Crown Point et al

Filing 54

OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING 40 MOTION for Leave to File Service of Process filed by Craig A Lozanovski. The Court NOTES that Affidavits of Special Process Server indicating individual service on Defendants have been filed at docket entries 51-1, 51-2, 51-3, and 52-1. Signed by Magistrate Judge Paul R Cherry on 2/1/18. (mlc)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
HAMMOND DIVISION
CRAIG A. LOZANOVSKI,
Plaintiff,
v.
OFFICER SCOTT BOURRELL, in his
individual capacity, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
) CAUSE NO. 2:15-CV-454-RL-PRC
)
)
)
)

OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on a Verified Motion for Leave of Court to File Service of
Process [DE 40], filed by Plaintiff Craig A. Lozanovski on March 16, 2017. Defendants Scott
Bourrell, Derrell Josleyn, Robert Ballas, and Mille Knezevic filed a response on April 5, 2017, and
Plaintiff filed a reply on April 25, 2017.
In a January 24, 2017 Opinion and Order, the Court set a new deadline of February 23, 2017,
for Plaintiff to serve Defendants. On February 14, 2017, Plaintiff filed an Affidavit of Special
Process Server and Certificates of Service signed by Susan Mack and dated February 7, 2017. In the
Certificates of Service, Mack certified that she had the authority to accept service on behalf of
Defendants and had been served. On March 7, 2017, Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss on the
basis that they had not been served. Defendants assert that Mack did not have authority to accept
service on behalf of Defendants. On March 16, 2017, Plaintiff attached an exhibit to the instant
motion. The exhibit is an Affidavit of Special Process Server and Certificates of Service signed by
Kathleen Broukal and dated March 8, 2017. In the Certificates of Service, Broukal certified that she
had the authority to accept service on behalf of Defendants and had been served. Defendants
maintain that Broukal did not have authority to accept service on behalf of Defendants. Plaintiff filed

Affidavits of Service on April 25, 2017, indicating individual service on Defendants occurring
between March 21, 2017, and April 29, 2017.
Because Plaintiff already received a new deadline to serve Defendants, Plaintiff must meet
the excusable neglect standard of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b) and not the good cause
standard of Rule 4(m). See United States v. McLaughlin, 470 F.3d 698, 700 (7th Cir. 2006).
Plaintiff has shown excusable neglect. Upon receiving the new deadline to serve Defendants,
Plaintiff acted promptly and made his first attempt to serve Defendants on February 7, 2017. Upon
learning that Defendants did not authorize Mack to accept service, Plaintiff again acted promptly
and made a second attempt on March 8, 2017. When Defendants communicated that Broukal was
also not authorized to accept service, Plaintiff switched to attempting individual service, and the
Affidavits reflecting individual service show that Plaintiff once again acted promptly in seeking to
achieve service.
Based on the foregoing, the Court hereby GRANTS the Verified Motion for Leave of Court
to File Service of Process [DE 40]. The Court NOTES that Affidavits of Special Process Server
indicating individual service on Defendants have been filed at docket entries 51-1, 51-2, 51-3, and
52-1.
So ORDERED this 1st day of February, 2018.
s/ Paul R. Cherry
MAGISTRATE JUDGE PAUL R. CHERRY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2