Hardaway et al v. Litton Loan Servicing, LP et al
ORDER STAYING CASE PENDING RULING ON MOTIONS TO DISMISS. Signed by Magistrate Judge Roy Percy on 3/20/17. (bnd)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
PAUL HARDAWAY and
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:17cv4-DMB-RP
LITTON LOAN SERVICING, LP,
OCWEN LOAN SERVICING, LLC,
and RUSHMORE LOAN MANAGEMENT
ORDER STAYING CASE PENDING RULING ON MOTION TO DISMISS
All of the defendants who have appeared in this action have filed motions to dismiss
asserting insufficient service of process. Docket 4, 5 and 7. A claim of insufficient service of
process is considered a jurisdictional defense, as the court would lack personal jurisdiction over
a defendant for whom service of process was insufficient. See Flory v. United States, 79 F.3d
24, 24-26 (5th Cir. 1996)(treating claim of insufficient service of process as jurisdictional
defense); Golden v. Cox Furniture Mgf. Co., Inc., 683 F.2d 115 (5th Cir. 1982)(considering claim
of insufficient service of process “and consequent lack of personal jurisdiction”); see also
Regions Bank v. Britt, 642 F.Supp. 584, 587 (S.D. Miss. 2009)(discussing waiver of
jurisdictional defenses “such as insufficiency of service of process”).
Under Local Uniform Civil Rule 16(b)(3)(B) the filing of “a motion asserting an
immunity defense or jurisdictional defense stays the attorney conference and disclosure
requirements and all discovery, pending the court’s ruling on the motion, including any appeal.”
Consequently, the attorney conference and disclosure requirements and all discovery are hereby
stayed, and the Case Management Conference is continued, pending a ruling on the motion to
dismiss. Counsel are directed to notify the undersigned within seven days of a ruling on the
motion to dismiss.
SO ORDERED, this, the 20th day of March, 2017.
/s/ Roy Percy
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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?