Gloworks, Inc. v. Krafft

Filing 7

ORDER DISMISSING CASE Without Prejudice Signed by District Judge Victoria A. Roberts. (CPin)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
GLOWORKS, INC.,
Plaintiff,

Case No. 17-10075
Honorable Victoria A. Roberts

v.
SCOTT KRAFFT,
Defendant.
______________________________/
ORDER DISMISSING CASE WITHOUT PREJUDICE
Plaintiff Gloworks, Inc. filed this case against Scott Krafft on January 10, 2017.
The 90-day period to serve the complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m)
expired on April 10, 2017; Gloworks had not served Krafft as of that date.
On April 27, 2017, the Court ordered Gloworks to show cause why the case
should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. Gloworks responded to the order on
May 8, 2017, stating that it: (1) believed Krafft had been evading service, which created
the delay in serving him; (2) only recently obtained Kraftt’s current address; and (3) was
“making every effort to locate and obtain service of process on [Krafft].”
Although Gloworks failed to provide details of the actions it had taken to serve
Krafft, the Court sent Gloworks’ counsel an email on May 10, 2017, stating, “The Court
accepts your Response to the Order to Show Cause. However, if you need more time
to serve the defendant, you may file an ex parte motion for additional time, advising the
Court of how much time you anticipate in needing and if you need the summonses to be
extended or reissued.”

Despite being notified of its deficiency and the Court’s attempt to accommodate
its needs, Gloworks still has not served Krafft, and it has not moved for additional time
to do so. Good cause does not exist for allowing this case to remain inactive for an
indefinite period, like the one other case filed in this District by Gloworks. See
Gloworks, Inc. v. Michael Stevenson, Case No. 16-13719 (complaint filed and summons
issued on October 19, 2016, but no other activity has occurred in the case).
The case is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 4(m) and E.D. Mich. LR 41.2. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m) (“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.”).
IT IS ORDERED.
S/Victoria A. Roberts
Victoria A. Roberts
United States District Judge
Dated: May 24, 2017

2