Halvorsen v. Quantum Finance and Business Intelligence

Filing 6

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Extension of Time to Serve Defendant, Doc. 5 , is DENIED without prejudice. Signed by District Judge Matthew T. Schelp on 3/5/2025. (TMT)

Case: 4:24-cv-01497-MTS

Doc. #: 6

Filed: 03/05/25

Page: 1 of 2 PageID #: 25

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
JOEL HALVORSEN,
Plaintiff,
vs.
QUANTUM FINANCE AND BUSINESS
INTELLIGENCE,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 4:24-cv-01497-MTS

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This case is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of Time to Serve
Defendant. Plaintiff filed this action 117 days ago. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 4(m), if a defendant is not served within ninety days after the complaint is filed, the
Court “must dismiss the action without prejudice against that defendant” or “order that service
be made within a specified time.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). On March 03, 2025, consistent with
Rule 4(m), the Court ordered that service be made and proof of service filed within ten days.
Doc. [4].
In response, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion seeking more time. Rule 4(m) provides
that if the plaintiff “shows good cause” for the failure to serve a defendant, then the district
court must extend the time for service for an appropriate period. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m).
Plaintiff’s Motion failed to show good cause. While the Motion states that Plaintiff has
“diligently attempted to serve Defendant” and made “reasonable efforts” to do so, the Motion
provides no details or specificities whatsoever around those “attempt[s]” and “efforts.” It
includes only Plaintiff’s unadorned conclusions that his (unspecified) attempts at service have

Case: 4:24-cv-01497-MTS

Doc. #: 6

Filed: 03/05/25

Page: 2 of 2 PageID #: 26

been diligent and reasonable. Plaintiff therefore has not shown good cause. See Fed. R. Civ.
P. 4(m); see also Show, Black’s Law Dictionary (12th ed. 2024); cf. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S.
662, 679 (2009) (“[W]here the well-pleaded facts do not permit the court to infer more than
the mere possibility of misconduct, the complaint has alleged—but it has not ‘show[n]’—‘that
the pleader is entitled to relief.’” (citing Fed. Rule Civ. P. 8(a)(2))).
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of Time to Serve
Defendant, Doc. [5], is DENIED without prejudice.
Dated this 5th day of March 2025.
MATTHEW T. SCHELP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

-2-