Burrell et al v. MGM Casino et al

Filing 31

ORDER of Dismissal for failure to prosecute. Daniel Hilanka and Eve Marston terminated. Signed by District Judge George Caram Steeh. (MBea)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
MARCIA BURRELL et al.,
CASE NO. 16-cv-10568
HON. GEORGE CARAM STEEH

Plaintiffs,
v.
MGM GRAND CASINO DETROIT
et al.,
Defendants.
____________________________/

ORDER OF DISMISSAL FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE
Plaintiffs filed their Complaint on February 16, 2016. Some four months later, on
June 27, 2016, plaintiffs still having failed to file a certificate of service of process as to
any defendant, this court ordered plaintiffs to show cause why this matter should not be
dismissed for failure to prosecute. Plaintiffs’ counsel timely replied to the court’s show
cause order setting forth various reasons for their delay including that counsel had
serious personal issues and had difficulty using e-file to show proof of service. On the
same day that they filed their response to the show cause order, plaintiffs also filed a
certificate of service of process as to defendant MGM Grand Casino Detroit (“MGM”),
showing the MGM had been served on June 13, 2016. Plaintiffs did not submit proof of
service of process as to any of the other defendants.
Upon review of plaintiffs’ response, this court ruled that even if plaintiffs’ counsel
failed to show good cause for a time extension, the court, in its discretion, would allow a
short time extension primarily because the 2015 Amendments to the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure, which shortened the time period for service from 120-days to 90-days,
-1 

only went into effect just a few months prior to the filing of this lawsuit. Under the old
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m), plaintiffs’ service on MGM would have been
timely. In addition, plaintiffs attempted service on the other defendants prior to the
expiration date which existed under the old 120-day period set forth in Rule 4(m). Given
these circumstances, the court granted plaintiffs a time extension to serve all
defendants on or before August 10, 2016, and stated that the failure to do so would be
grounds for immediate dismissal.
To date, plaintiffs have not submitted a certificate of service of process as to any
of the other defendants. However, it appears that plaintiffs served defendant Michigan
Gaming Control Board (“MGCB”), as that defendant filed a motion to dismiss based on
its sovereign immunity, which this court has granted. No proof of service of the
summons and Complaint exists as to the individual defendants, Daniel Hilanka and Eve
Marston.1 Plaintiffs are three months past the court ordered extended deadline for
service of process, and nearly six months past the original Rule 4(m) deadline.
Moreover, plaintiffs have not sought an additional time-extension. Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that defendants Eve Marston and Daniel Hilanka are
DISMISSED.
Dated: November 10, 2016
s/George Caram Steeh
GEORGE CARAM STEEH
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

1
 The Complaint identifies Hilanka as a MGCB officer; however, the MGCB denies that
he is or ever was its employee.

-2 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
Copies of this Order were served upon attorneys of record on
November 10, 2016, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.
s/Marcia Beauchemin
Deputy Clerk

-3