Ford Robinson Partnership v. Wells Fargo Clearing Services, LLC et al

Filing 19

SHOW CAUSE ORDER - that plaintiff shall have until July 5, 2018 to show cause why this case should not be dismissed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) or for want of prosecution. The failure to timely comply with this order may result in dismissal of this action without further notice. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Cheryl R. Zwart. (KLF)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
FORD ROBINSON PARTNERSHIP, a
Nebraska Partnership;
8:18CV9
Plaintiff,
SHOW CAUSE ORDER

vs.
HOLLIS LORENZO MAXFIELD, ALPHA
E ANGEL, LLC, a Texas Limited Liability
Company; MIKE BARBEE, MIKE
BARBEE, GERALD LEWIS, and 4
HORSEMEN, LLC,
Defendants.

Plaintiff Ford Robinson Partnership filed its complaint against Hollis Lorenzo
Maxfield, Alpha E Angel LLC, Mike Barbee, Mike Barbee d/b/a First Mutual Funding,
Gerald Lewis, and Wells Fargo Advisors on January 6, 2017 (Filing No. 1 ¶ 1). On
July 7, 2017, Plaintiff amended its complaint adding claims against 4 Horsemen
LLC. (Id.). It was later discovered that Wells Fargo Advisors was not a legal entity
and on December 12, 2017, Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint substituting
Wells Fargo Clearing Services LLC (“Wells Fargo CS”) for Wells Fargo Advisors.
(Filing No. 1). Plaintiff served the Second Amended Complaint on Wells Fargo CS.
Wells Fargo CS removed the above-captioned case to this Court on January 5,
2018. Wells Fargo CS did not serve notice of removal on other defendants as they
had not yet been served by Plaintiff on the date of removal. (Filing No. 1 ¶ 26).

On January 12, 2018, Wells Fargo CS filed a motion to dismiss. (Filing No. 6).
On February 15, 2018, Presiding Judge, Robert F. Rossiter, Jr. entered an order
requiring Plaintiff to show cause why Wells Fargo CS’s motion to dismiss should not
be entered against Plaintiff as it failed to respond in by the required deadline. (Filing
No. 10). After sufficiently showing cause, Plaintiff filed his response to the Motion to

Dismiss, and included an informal request to amend the complaint to cure
deficiencies addressed in the motion to dismiss. (Filing No. 12). On March 20, 2018,
Judge Rossiter entered an order granting the Motion to Dismiss finding that Plaintiff
had “failed to state a claim against Wells Fargo [CS] because . . . the Second
Amended Complaint [failed] to plausibly impute any potential liability” and the
plaintiff did “not plead the alleged fraud with sufficient particularity to satisfy Rule
9(b).” (Filing No. 18 at CM/ECF p. 6). Accordingly, Judge Rossiter dismissed Wells
Fargo CS as a party. (Filing No. 18). Addressing Plaintiff’s request to amend, Judge
Rossiter granted the request providing Plaintiff ten days from the date of the Order
to amend its Second Amended Complaint. (Filing No. 18).
It has now been approximately 75 days since the entry of Judge Rossiter’s
order. Plaintiff has not filed an amended Complaint nor has service been completed
on any of the remaining defendants—even though it has been nearly a year and a
half since the initial complaint was filed. And none of the remaining defendants have
voluntarily appeared.

Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that plaintiff shall have until July 5, 2018 to show cause why
this case should not be dismissed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m)
or for want of prosecution. The failure to timely comply with this order may result in
dismissal of this action without further notice.

Dated this 4th day of June, 2018.
BY THE COURT:
s/ Cheryl R. Zwart
United States Magistrate Judge

2