Neumont University, LLC v. Little Bizzy, LLC et al
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)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
Neumont University, LLC,
Case No.: 2:12-cv-1395-JAD-PAL
On February 9, 2015, I gave Neumont University, LLC until February 19, 2015, to serve
defendant Jesse Nickles “by email at firstname.lastname@example.org and file proof of this service.” Doc. 69
at 9. More than a month has passed since this 10-day service deadline ran, and Neumont has not
filed proof of service or explained why service of the filing of the notice was not possible.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) states that “If a defendant is not served within 120 days
after the complaint is filed, the court—on motion or on its own after notice to the plaintiff—must
dismiss the action without prejudice against that defendant or order that service be made within a
specified time. But if the plaintiff shows good cause for the failure, the court must extend the time
for service for an appropriate period.”1
In two prior orders, I provided reasons why I found Neumont’s prior service attempts to be
unsatisfactory, gave Neumont ample opportunity to demonstrate good cause, and ultimately extended
the long-expired 120-day service deadline to permit service on Nickles by email. Docs. 62, 69.
Neumont has not filed proof of service or explained why service (or the filing of proof of service)
could not be effectuated. As Neumont has apparently elected not to avail itself of these extensions of
the service deadlines and the ability to serve Nickles by email, I now give Neumont until April 1,
2015, to comply with my prior instructions or have its claims against Nickles dismissed without
prejudice and this case closed.
Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 4(m).
Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED 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 Neumont’s claims against Nickles should not be
dismissed under FRCP 4(m). Should Neumont fail to take one of these steps to the court’s
satisfaction, its claims against Nickles will be dismissed without prejudice and without further
DATED: March 24, 2015.
Jennifer A. Dorsey
United States District 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?