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

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