EDWARDS v. EAST LIBERTY PLACE NORTH

Filing 10

MEMORANDUM OPINION denying Motion to Dismiss without prejudice. Signed by Judge Arthur J. Schwab on 10/22/2014. (lmt)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
DONALD EDWARDS,
Plaintiff,

14cv0592
ELECTRONICALLY FILED

v.
EAST LIBERTY PLACE NORTH,
Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION
On May 9, 2014, Plaintiff, Donald Edwards, filed a Complaint alleging that his landlord,
Defendant, East Liberty Place North,1 refused to renew his lease terminated him on account of
his race in violation of the Fair Housing Act. See doc. nos. 1, 3. The Fair Housing Act
authorizes aggrieved persons to commence a civil action in, inter alia, an appropriate United
States District Court. 42 U.S.C. § 3613(a)(1)(A). Plaintiff’s Complaint alleges that he fully
paid his rent, but also indicates that at some point in time a dispute arose over whether Plaintiff
did fully his pay his rent. On May 9, 2014, this Court granted Plaintiff’s request to proceed in
forma pauperis. See doc. no. 2.
On September 24, 2014, the Court entered a Show Cause Order which indicated that the
instant would be dismissed on October 8, 2014, without prejudice, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
4(m), “unless good cause is shown before October 8, 2014 regarding why Plaintiff failed to serve
the Defendant with a copy of the Complaint within 120 days of the filing of the Complaint.” The
Show Cause Order further required Plaintiff file a Response explaining why he failed to served
1

As noted by Defendant, the Defendant is improperly identified as “East Liberty Place North.”
Defendant claims its identity is actually, “East Liberty Place North, Limited Partnership d/b/a East
Liberty Place North/ELPN, by and through its agent The Community Builder.”

Defendant with the Complaint on or before October 7, 2014. On October 7, 2014, Plaintiff
timely filed his Response and indicated in it that the summons he sent to Defendant went to the
wrong address. See doc. no. 7.
In the interim, on October 1, 2014, Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss and Brief in
Support under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(4) and 12(b)(5). To this end, the Defendant claimed that he
not been adequately served in accordance with Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(m).
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure govern the procedure in all civil actions in the
United States District Courts. Fed.R.Civ.P. 1. Those rules, including the discovery obligations
they impose, are thus fully applicable in this civil action.
This Court, mindful of Plaitniff’s pro se status, will provide him with another fourteen
(14) days, until November 5, 2014, to properly serve Defendant in accordance with the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(m). Should Plaintiff fail to do so, Defendant may
renew its Motion to Dismiss.
An appropriate Order shall follow.
s/Arthur J. Schwab
Arthur J. Schwab
United States District Judge
cc:

All Registered ECF Counsel
and
Donald Edwards
7272 Verona Blvd
Pittsburgh, PA 15235

2