Williams v. Tulsa, City of et al

Filing 60

OPINION AND ORDER by Judge Terence Kern ; setting/resetting deadline(s)/hearing(s): ( Status Report due by 10/11/2013); denying 56 Motion to Quash (vah, Chambers)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA

DeMARCO DEON WILLIAMS,
Plaintiff,
vs.
CITY OF TULSA, and
JEFFREY MICHAEL HENDERSON,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 11-CV-469-TCK-FHM

OPINION AND ORDER
Before the Court is Defendant Jeffrey Henderson’s Motion to Quash Service of Process (Doc.
56), wherein Henderson urges the Court to quash service because it was effected five days after the
120-day deadline in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m).
The Court previously granted Henderson’s motion to set aside the entry of default entered
against him. (See Doc. 57.) In the current motion, Henderson urges the Court to take the additional
step of dismissing the case or quashing service of process against him. Plaintiff argues that the
relevant factors weigh in favor of a permissive extension of the service deadline. The Court finds that
the relevant factors support a permissive extension of the service deadline because (1) the statute of
limitations on Plaintiff’s claim has expired; (2) Plaintiff made a good-faith effort to effect service and
missed the deadline by only five days; (3) Henderson had actual notice of the lawsuit; and (4)
Henderson will suffer no actual prejudice due to the delay. See McClellan v. Bd. of Cnty. Comm’rs
of Tulsa Cnty., 261 F.R.D. 595, 604 (N.D. Okla. 2009) (listing factors).

Therefore, Defendant Jeffrey Henderson’s Motion to Quash Service of Process (Doc. 56) is
DENIED. The parties are ordered to submit a Joint Status Report governing the remainder of the
case no later than October 11, 2013.
SO ORDERED this 30th day of September, 2013.

2