Jackson v. The Coastal Companies, LLC

Filing 21

ORDER denying 9 Motion to Dismiss; denying 11 Motion for Extension of Time to Answer; and denying 15 Motion for Default Judgment. Plaintiff is GRANTED thirty (30) days from the date of entry of this order to properly effect service on defendant. Signed by US District Judge Terrence W. Boyle on 4/13/2018. Counsel is reminded to read the order in its entirety for important information. (Stouch, L.)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
EASTERN DIVISION
No. 4:17-CV-123-BO

ALFRED L.

JACKSO~,

Plaintiff,
v.

THE COASTAL COMPANIES, LLC,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on defendant's motion to dismiss for insufficient service
of process [DE 9], defendant's motion for extension oftime [DE 11], and plaintiffs motion for
default judgment [DE 15]. The matters have been fully briefed and are ripe for ruling. For the
following reasons, defendant's motions to dismiss for insufficient service and for extension of
time are denied, and plaintiffs motion for default judgment is denied.
This dispute is about plaintiffs attempts to serve defendant. Plaintiffs process server
arrived at Sibyl Saunders' home in Supply, North Carolina on December 2, 2017. Sibyl Saunders
is the spouse of Mark Saunders, who is a managing member of the limited liability company
named in this lawsuit. The parties contest whether Mark Saunders was actually served, which is
a factual question, and alternatively whether service upon Sibyl Saunders is sufficient under the
North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure, a legal question.
First, default judgments even when proper service was unequivocally effected are
disfavored. See Colleton Prep. Acad., Inc. v. Hoover Universal, Inc. 616 F.3d 413, 417 (4th Cir.
2010) ("We have repeatedly expressed a strong preference that ... claims and defenses be
disposed of on their merits.").

This case is in the very early stages. In order to proceed to the underlying matters with
efficiency, .plaintiff is GRANTED thirty (30) days from the date of entry of this order to properly
effect service on defendant. Once defendant has been served, the case may proceed normally. If
plaintiff does not properly serve defendant, plaintiffs case may be dismissed for failure to
prosecute. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). Accordingly, the pending motions [DE 9, 11, 15] are all
DENIED.

SO ORDERED, this (}day of April, 2018.