Lu v. Frates, Et Al

Filing 13

Chief Judge Patti B. Saris: ORDER entered denying 9 Motion for Reconsideration. Plaintiff shall show cause why this case should not be dismissed for failure to serve pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). Plaintiff shall show such cause by September 12, 2017. (Attachments: # 1 notice to plaintiff in fee paying case) (PSSA, 4)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
FRIEDRICH LU,
Plaintiff,
v.
TIMOTHY FRATES, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civ. Action No. 17-10518-PBS

ORDER
August 31, 2017
SARIS, C.D.J.
Now pending before the Court are (1) plaintiff’s motion for
reconsideration of the denial of his motion for temporary
restraining order and preliminary injunction and (2) plaintiff’s
response to court order.
1.

See Docket Nos. 9, 12.

Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration

By Endorsed Order dated March 31, 2017, plaintiff’s one-page
emergency motion was denied on the ground that he had not shown
irreparable harm.

See Docket No. 7.

In his motion for

reconsideration, plaintiff argues, among other things, that “the
court erred, by applying a wrong legal standard.”
9.

See Docket No.

A court’s reconsideration of a decision is “an extraordinary

remedy which should be used sparingly,” Palmer v. Champion Mortg.,
465 F.3d 24, 30 (1st Cir. 2006), and “simple disagreement with the
court’s decision is not a basis for reconsideration.” Ofori v.
Ruby Tuesday, Inc., 205 Fed. Appx. 851, 853 (1st Cir. 2006)
(unpublished).
denied.

Accordingly, the motion for reconsideration is

2.

Failure to Serve Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m)

On May 25, 2017, the Court denied plaintiff’s request for
default because Lu had not met his burden of proving timely and
proper service of process.

See Docket No. 11.

At that time, the

90 day period had not yet expired for service of the summonses,
which were issued on March 31, 2017.

Id.

In his response to the Court’s May 25, 2017 Order, plaintiff
contends that the defendants “had been properly served with
process” and that it would be “superfluous to serve them again
with the same.”

See Docket No. 12.

Despite plaintiff’s argument,

he has failed to meet his burden of proving timely and proper
service of process as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(1)(1).
Therefore, plaintiff will be ordered to show cause why this case
should not be dismissed for failure to serve pursuant to Fed. R.
Civ. P. 4(m).
Based on the foregoing, it is hereby ordered that:
1.

Plaintiff’s motion [#9] for reconsideration is denied.

2.

Plaintiff shall show cause why this case should not be

dismissed for failure to serve pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m).
Plaintiff shall show such cause by September 12, 2017.
SO ORDERED.
/s/ Patti B. Saris
PATTI B. SARIS
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2