Steele v. Bayer HealthCare, LLC et al
Filing
7
ORDER AND REASONS granting 4 Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Rule 4(m), dismissing this matter WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Signed by Judge Jane Triche Milazzo. (ecm, )
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
BRIANNA STEELE
CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS
NO: 13‐528
BAYER HEALTHCARE LLC, ET AL
SECTION: “H”(4)
ORDER AND REASONS
Before the Court is Defendants' Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Rule 4(m) (Doc. 4). Plaintiff
has filed a statement of non‐opposition to the motion. For the following reasons, the Motion is
GRANTED and this matter is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
LAW AND ANALYSIS
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) provides: "[i]f a defendant is not served within 120 days
after the complaint is filed, the court—on motion or on its own after notice to the plaintiff—must
1
dismiss the action without prejudice against that defendant or order that service be made within
a specified time." A plaintiff may avoid dismissal by showing good cause for the delay. "When
service of process is challenged, the serving party bears the burden of proving good cause for
failure to effect timely service. Proof of good cause requires at least as much as would be required
to show excusable neglect, as to which simple inadvertence or mistake of counsel or ignorance of
the rules usually does not suffice." Thrasher v. City of Amarillo, 709 F.3d 509, 511 (5th Cir. 2013)
(internal quotations omitted).
Although Plaintiff has chosen not to file an opposition, the Court may not simply grant the
instant Motion as unopposed. The Fifth Circuit approaches the automatic grant of dispositive
motions with considerable aversion. See, e.g., Servicios Azucareros de Venezuela, C.A. v. John
Deere Thibodeaux, Inc., 702 F.3d 794, 806 (5th Cir. 2012); Johnson v. Pettiford, 442 F.3d 917, 918
(5th Cir. 2006) (per curiam); John v. State of Louisiana (Bd. of Trs. for State Colls. and Univs.), 757
F.2d 698, 709 (5th Cir. 1985).
Plaintiff filed her complaint on March 20, 2013. Defendants filed their motion to dismiss
on July 25, 2013, more than 120 days after the filing of the complaint. Plaintiff filed her notice of
non‐opposition on September 19, 2013, and still had not effected service as of that date. Plaintiff
has failed to show any cause, much less good cause, for her failure to serve Defendants. Therefore,
the Court grants the instant Motion.
2
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Defendants Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED, and this matter is
DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 2nd day of October, 2013.
____________________________
JANE TRICHE MILAZZO
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
3
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?