Lee v. Trump et al

Filing 23

ORDER Denying without prejudice 22 Robin M. Lee's Motion for an Immediate Court Order of Partial Settlement. Plaintiff may renew this motion after defendants have been properly served with a summons and a copy of the complaint and after plaintiff has filed proof of service with the court. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(a), (c)(1), and (l)(1). Signed by Magistrate Judge Cam Ferenbach on 6/12/12. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - EDS)

1
2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

3

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

4
5
6
7
8

ROBIN M. LEE,
Plaintiff,
v.
DONALD J. TRUMP, et al.,
Defendant.

9
10

***
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

2:12-cv-00077-RCJ -VCF
2:12-cv-0077-MMD-VCF
ORDER

Before the court are plaintiff Robin M. Lee’s Motion for an Immediate Court Order of Partial

11

Settlement. (#22).

12

Background

13

Plaintiff Lee’s complaint was filed on January 17, 2012. (#1). Summons were issued on the

14

same day. (#3). On February 22, 2012, plaintiff filed a motion for default judgment. (#8). On April

15

2, 2012, plaintiff filed a motion that all proceedings be in publications. (#9). On April 23, 2012, the

16

court denied plaintiff’s motion for default judgment, and ordered that the clerk of the court shall

17

“re-issue [3] Summons and shall mail newly issued Summons to Plaintiff as to the following parties:

18

Trump Corporation and Donald J. Trump.” (#11). The court also ordered that plaintiff “shall have to

19

and including 120 days from the date the summons are issued within which to serve Plaintiff’s

20

Complaint on Defendants in full compliance with the requirements of Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of

21

Civil Procedure.” Id.

22

On the same day, the clerk issued summons as to Donald J. Trump and Trump Corporation

23

(#12), and plaintiff filed a “Motion That Following Orders Prepared Be Granted To Inc. A Minimum

24

$10 Billion Default Judgment” (#13). On May 7, 2012, plaintiff filed a motion for emergency situation

25

hearing. (#14). On May 23, 2012, the court issued an order denying plaintiff’s pending motions (#9,

26

#13, and #14) without prejudice, “with leave for plaintiff to renew the motions after the defendants have

1

been properly served and after plaintiff has filed proof of service with the court.” (#19). The court held

2

that denial without prejudice is warranted, because “[a]s defendants have not been served with a

3

summons and a copy of the complaint or a copy of the plaintiff’s motions (#9, #13, and #14), defendants

4

have not been given an opportunity to appear in the action, to defend against the allegations in the

5

complaint (#1), or to respond to the plaintiff’s pending motions (#9, #13, and #14). See Fed. R. Civ. P.

6

4(a), (c)(1), and (l)(1); LR 7-2(a).” Id.

7

On June 6, 2012, plaintiff filed the instant motion asking the court for an order of partial

8

settlement. (#22). In his motion, plaintiff asserts that “he accepts the out of court settlement of $5

9

billion of [the] total $215 billion sought in the original complaint.” Id.

10

Relevant Law

11

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(a), a summons must be directed to the defendant, state the time

12

within which the defendant must appear and defend, and notify the defendant that a failure to appear

13

and defend will result in a default judgment against the defendant for the relief demanded in the

14

complaint. Rule 4(c)(1) provides that “[a] summons must be served with a copy of the complaint,” and

15

that the “plaintiff is responsible for having the summons and complaint served within the time allowed

16

by Rule 4(m) and must furnish the necessary copies to the person who makes service.” Fed. R. Civ. P.

17

4(c)(1). Once a defendant has been served with a summons and a copy of the complaint, proof of

18

service must be made to the court. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(l)(1). If a defendant is not served within 120 days

19

after the complaint is filed, the court may dismiss the action. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m).

20

Parties may file motions requesting a court order. Fed. R. Civ. P. 7(b). Local Rule 7-2(a)

21

provides that “[a]ll motions, unless made during a hearing or trial, shall be in writing and served on all

22

other parties who have appeared.”

23

Discussion

24

Since the summons (#12) were issued on April 23, 2012, plaintiff has until August 21, 2012, to

25

provide proof of service of the summons and complaint. (#11). To date, no proof of service has been

26

2

1

filed. As defendants have not been served with a summons and a copy of the complaint or a copy of

2

the plaintiff’s motion (#22), defendants have not been given an opportunity to appear in the action, to

3

defend against the allegations in the complaint (#1), or to respond to the plaintiff’s pending motion

4

(#22). See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(a), (c)(1), and (l)(1); LR 7-2(a). The court will deny the pending motion

5

(#22) without prejudice, with leave for plaintiff to renew the motion after the defendants have been

6

properly served and after plaintiff has filed proof of service with the court.

7

Accordingly, and for good cause shown,

8

IT IS ORDERED that Robin M. Lee’s Motion for an Immediate Court Order of Partial

9

Settlement (#22) is DENIED without prejudice. Plaintiff may renew this motion after defendants have

10

been properly served with a summons and a copy of the complaint and after plaintiff has filed proof of

11

service with the court. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(a), (c)(1), and (l)(1).

12

DATED this 12th day of June, 2012.

13
14

CAM FERENBACH
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

3