PLETOS v. MAKOWER ABATTE GUERRA WEGNER VOLLER et al

Filing 29

ORDER DENYING AS MOOT PLAINTIFFS' REQUEST TO EXCEED PAGE LIMIT 26 AND ORDERING PLAINTIFFS TO SHOW CAUSE WHY SUMMONS SHOULD BE EXTENDED. Signed by District Judge Gershwin A. Drain. (TBan)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
SANDRA PLETOS and MITCHELL PLETOS,
Plaintiffs,

Case No. 16-cv-13175

v.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
GERSHWIN A. DRAIN

MAKOWER ABATTE GUERRA WEGNER
VOLLER, et al.,

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
MONA K. MAJZOUB

Defendants.
/
ORDER DENYING AS MOOT PLAINTIFFS’ REQUEST TO EXCEED PAGE LIMIT [26]
AND ORDERING PLAINTIFFS TO SHOW CAUSE WHY SUMMONS SHOULD BE
EXTENDED
On September 2, 2016, Sandra and Mitchell Pletos (“Plaintiffs”) commenced
the instant action against nine defendants. Dkt. No. 1. In their Complaint, Plaintiffs
allege violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, Michigan Regulation of
Collection Practices Act, Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, and
other claims. Id. at 6–28 (Pg. ID No. 6–28). This case has been pending for more
than three months and was just recently reassigned with three motions pending,
two of which are dispositive. See Dkt. No. 9, 13, 16, 24.
The pending dispositive motions are scheduled for hearing in March 2017.
In this Order, the Court will address Plaintiffs’ Ex Parte Motion to Extend
Summons [16] and Plaintiffs’ Request to Exceed Page Limit [26].

-1-

A. Motion to Extend Service
On December 1, 2016, Plaintiffs filed an Ex Parte Motion for First
Extension of Time to Serve Summons and Complaint. Dkt. No. 16. Rule 4(m) of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that:
If a defendant is not served within 90 days after the complaint is filed,
the court—on motion or on its own after notice to the plaintiff—must
dismiss the action without prejudice against that defendant or order
that service be made within a specified time. But if the plaintiff shows
good cause for the failure, the court must extend the time for service
for an appropriate period.
FED. R. CIV. P. 4(m). “Although the rule by its express language provides that the
court ‘shall’ dismiss an action when service is not effected within [90] days, it also
provides some flexibility in that it allows a court to choose not to dismiss but rather
to extend the service time when good cause is shown.” United States v. Ninety
Three Firearms, 330 F.3d 414, 426 (6th Cir. 2003).
In determining whether to grant an extension, the Court should consider the
following factors: (1) whether a significant extension of time is required; (2)
whether an extension of time would prejudice the defendant other than the inherent
prejudice in having to defend the suit; (3) whether the defendant had actual notice
of the lawsuit; (4) whether a dismissal without prejudice would substantially
prejudice the plaintiff; i.e., would her lawsuit be time-barred; and (5) whether the
plaintiff has made good faith efforts at effecting proper service of process. Slenzka
v. Landstar Ranger, Inc., 204 F.R.D. 322, 326 (E.D. Mich. 2001).
-2-

Reviewing the pleading submitted by Plaintiffs, it is not possible for the
Court to decipher whether every defendant had actual notice of the lawsuit and
whether good faith efforts at effecting proper service of process were made.
Accordingly, the Court hereby ORDERS Plaintiffs to SHOW CAUSE why time
for service of the Summons and First Amended Complaint should be extended.

B. Request to Exceed Page Limit
On December 15, 2016, Plaintiffs requested a 15-page extension to the 25page limit for briefs. Dkt. No. 26 (Pg. ID No. 1094). Since that filing, Plaintiffs
have submitted a response that complies with the Local Rule restricting brief
length to 25 pages. See Dkt. No. 28. Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs’
request [26] as moot.
Future requests should be made in accordance with this Court’s Chamber
Practice Guidelines. (“Extensions of the page limit set forth in Local Rule 7.1 may
be obtained by the filing of an ex parte motion, which may be granted if the request
for additional pages is warranted and reasonable.”). However, parties should note
that the Court is not in the habit of granting such large extensions to the page
limits, absent good cause.
Finally, it is necessary to remind all parties that they are required to comply
with the Eastern District of Michigan Local Rules. This includes Rule 5.1(a)(3),

-3-

which requires all papers submitted to the Court to be in 14 point type size for all
text and all footnotes.1 The Court may strike future papers submitted in violation of
the Local Rules.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: December 20, 2016
Detroit, MI

/s/Gershwin A Drain
HON. GERSHWIN A. DRAIN
United States District Court Judge

1

Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment, Dkt. No. 9, and Reply Brief,
Dkt. No. 27, appear to utilize type size 11 for text and type size 10 for footnotes.
-4-