RICHARD v. TOYOTA MOTOR CORPORATION et al

Filing 31

ENTRY Concerning Selected Matters. The plaintiff's motion for the Court's assistance in serving Toyota Motor Corporation ("TMC") with service of process [dkt. 12] is granted. The plaintiff's motion to file waiver of service of summons [dkt. 13] is denied as moot. The plaintiff's motion for the Court to hold personal jurisdiction over TMC [dkt.20]is denied as premature. The plaintiff's motion for an extension to time to file a reply to the defendants' answers [dkt. 21] is denied as unnecessary. The plaintiff's motions for clerk's entry of default [dkt. 23] and for default judgment [dkt. 24] against TMC are denied. TMC's motion to dismiss for insufficient service of process [dkt. 25] is denied. Although TMC is entitled to 60 days to file the waiver form, counsel for TMC is directed to notify the court in writing, within 14 days of the date this Entry is issued, whether service is expected to be waived so that the Court ca n plan accordingly. If service is not waived, the court will be required to expend judicial resources to effect proper service, an expense which could ultimately be charged to TMC consistent with Rule 4. TMC's assistance in this regard would be appreciated. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 2/23/2016. Copy sent to Plaintiff via U.S. Mail. (BGT)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION
JOYCE RICHARD,
Plaintiff,
v.
TOYOTA MOTOR CORPORATION,
et al.
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 1:15-cv-01931-JMS-TAB

Entry Concerning Selected Matters
The court, having considered the above action and the matters which are pending, makes
the following rulings:
1.

The plaintiff’s motion for the Court’s assistance in serving Toyota Motor

Corporation (“TMC”) with service of process [dkt. 12] is granted. Because the plaintiff is
proceeding in forma pauperis, this ruling is mandated by Rule 4(c)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure. See dkt. 4. This Rule provides:
At the plaintiff’s request, the court may order that service be made by a United
States marshal or deputy marshal or by a person specially appointed by the court.
The court must so order if the plaintiff is authorized to proceed in forma
pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 or as a seaman under 28 U.S.C. § 1916.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(3).
2.

The plaintiff’s motion to file waiver of service of summons [dkt. 13] is denied as

moot. The record reflects that Toyota Motor Engineering and Manufacturing North America, Inc.,
have been served and has filed an answer. See dkts. 7 and 15. Similarly, Toyota Motor Sales USA,
Inc. (“TMS”) has appeared in this action and filed an answer. Dkt. 14. There is no suggestion that
TMS contends that it received insufficient service of process.

3.

The plaintiff’s motion for the Court to hold personal jurisdiction over TMC [dkt.

20] is denied as premature. Before personal jurisdiction can be addressed TMC must be served.
4.

The plaintiff’s motion for an extension to time to file a reply to the defendants’

answers [dkt. 21] is denied as unnecessary. A reply to an answer is only permitted when the court
orders one. Fed. R. Civ. P. 7(a)(7). No such reply shall be ordered in this case.
5.

The plaintiff’s motions for clerk’s entry of default [dkt. 23] and for default

judgment [dkt. 24] against TMC are denied. TMC has not been served and is not in default.
6.

TMC’s motion to dismiss for insufficient service of process [dkt. 25] is denied.

Given the fact that the plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis this court is responsible for serving
TMC. Under these circumstances, this action shall not be dismissed based on the fact that the Court
has yet to fulfill its obligations.
7.

TMC is requested to waive formal service of process by filing the waiver form

accompanying this Entry. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(d), 4(f) and 4(h). Although TMC is entitled to 60
days to file the waiver form, counsel for TMC is directed to notify the court in writing, within
14 days of the date this Entry is issued, whether service is expected to be waived so that the
Court can plan accordingly. If service is not waived, the court will be required to expend judicial
resources to effect proper service, an expense which could ultimately be charged to TMC
consistent with Rule 4. TMC’s assistance in this regard would be appreciated.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: February 23, 2016

Distribution:

_______________________________
Hon. Jane Magnus-Stinson, Judge
United States District Court
Southern District of Indiana

All Electronically Registered Counsel
JOYCE RICHARD, 2904 E. 16TH STREET, INDIANAPOLIS, IN 46201-1214