Neumont University, LLC v. Little Bizzy, LLC et al

Filing 70

ORDER that Neumont has until April 1, 2015, to (1) file proof that Nickles was served by email on or before February 19, 2015, or (2) demonstrate why such service was not effectuated and why Neumonts claims against Nickles should not be dismissed under FRCP 4(m). Should Neumont fail to take one of these steps to the courts satisfaction, its claims against Nickles will be dismissed without prejudice and without further notice. Signed by Judge Jennifer A. Dorsey on 3/24/15. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - TR)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3
4

Neumont University, LLC,

5

Plaintiff,

6

Case No.: 2:12-cv-1395-JAD-PAL

v.

7

Order

Jesse Nickles,

8

Defendant.

9
10

On February 9, 2015, I gave Neumont University, LLC until February 19, 2015, to serve

11

defendant Jesse Nickles “by email at [e-mail] and file proof of this service.” Doc. 69

12

at 9. More than a month has passed since this 10-day service deadline ran, and Neumont has not

13

filed proof of service or explained why service of the filing of the notice was not possible.

14

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) states that “If a defendant is not served within 120 days

15

after the complaint is filed, the court—on motion or on its own after notice to the plaintiff—must

16

dismiss the action without prejudice against that defendant or order that service be made within a

17

specified time. But if the plaintiff shows good cause for the failure, the court must extend the time

18

for service for an appropriate period.”1

19

In two prior orders, I provided reasons why I found Neumont’s prior service attempts to be

20

unsatisfactory, gave Neumont ample opportunity to demonstrate good cause, and ultimately extended

21

the long-expired 120-day service deadline to permit service on Nickles by email. Docs. 62, 69.

22

Neumont has not filed proof of service or explained why service (or the filing of proof of service)

23

could not be effectuated. As Neumont has apparently elected not to avail itself of these extensions of

24

the service deadlines and the ability to serve Nickles by email, I now give Neumont until April 1,

25

2015, to comply with my prior instructions or have its claims against Nickles dismissed without

26

prejudice and this case closed.

27
28

1

Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 4(m).
1

1

Conclusion

2

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Neumont has until April 1, 2015, to (1) file

3

proof that Nickles was served by email on or before February 19, 2015, or (2) demonstrate why

4

such service was not effectuated and why Neumont’s claims against Nickles should not be

5

dismissed under FRCP 4(m). Should Neumont fail to take one of these steps to the court’s

6

satisfaction, its claims against Nickles will be dismissed without prejudice and without further

7

notice.

8

DATED: March 24, 2015.

9
10
11

_________________________________
____________________
_ __
__
_ __
__
Jennifer A. Dorsey
D
Dorsey
United States District Judge

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2