Butler v. New Horizons Computer Learning Centers-Great Lakes et al

Filing 53

ORDER granting defendants' 40 Motion to Dismiss; denying plaintiff's 48 Motion for Default Judgment by Judge Ricardo S Martinez.(RS) cc plaintiff

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 ) AMELIA L. BUTLER, ) CASE NO. C16-1184 RSM ) Plaintiff, ) ) ORDER OF DISMISSAL v. ) ) NEW HORIZONS COMPUTER ) LEARNING CENTERS-GREAT LAKES, ) et al., ) ) Defendants. ) 15 THIS MATTER comes before the Court on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss for 16 Insufficient Service of Process. Dkt. #40. Defendants assert that Plaintiff has failed to properly 17 serve them in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4. Id. Having reviewed the 18 motion, the Declaration filed in support thereof, and the remainder of the record, the Court agrees 19 20 that Plaintiff has failed to effect proper service. 21 Declarations of Service, none of those Declarations reflect that Defendants, or an agent thereof, 22 have been properly served. See Dkts. #16, #34, #35, #44, #45, #49, #51 and #52. Ms. Butler 23 Although Plaintiff has filed numerous apparently served copies of the Summons and Complaint on a woman named Lisa Kelley in 24 Livonia, MI. Id. Ms. Butler asserts that Ms. Kelley is an attorney in Defendants’ legal department 25 26 and had the authority to accept service. Id. However, the record demonstrates that Ms. Kelley is a 27 former accounts payable clerk for NH Learning Solutions Corporation, who is not a named 28 Defendant in this action, and was not authorized to accept service for either of the named ORDER PAGE - 1 1 Defendants in this action. Dkt. #40-1 at ¶ ¶ 3-9. Although Ms. Butler was informed of this 2 deficiency in response to her prior motions, it appears she has never attempted to properly serve 3 Defendants. 4 Accordingly, for the reasons set forth in Defendants’ motion, the Court agrees that service 5 was improper, and the Court hereby GRANTS Defendants’ motion (Dkt. #40) and DISMISSES 6 7 this case. 8 In addition, Plaintiff’s second Motion for Default Judgment (Dkt. #48) is DENIED for the 9 same reasons the Court denied her first motion for default judgment (Dkts. #38 and #46) and 10 because it is now MOOT. 11 The Clerk SHALL mail a copy of this Order to Plaintiff via U.S. Mail. 12 13 This matter is now CLOSED. 14 DATED this 27th day of April, 2017. 15 A 16 RICARDO S. MARTINEZ CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ORDER PAGE - 2

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?