ME2 Productions, Inc v. Doe 1 et al

Filing 35

ORDER REINSTATING CLAIMS against Whendi Phipps, Clinton Henderson and Rachel Kron; granting Plaintiff's 33 Motion to Set Aside Dismissal, by Judge Robert S. Lasnik. (SWT)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

6
7

ME2 PRODUCTIONS, INC.,

8
9

Plaintiff,
Case No. C16-1953RSL
v.

10

WHENDI PHIPPS, et al.,

11

Defendants.

ORDER REINSTATING CLAIMS
AGAINST WHENDI PHIPPS,
CLINTON HENDERSON, AND
RACHEL KRON

12
13

This matter comes before the Court on plaintiff’s “Motion to Set Aside Dismissal.”

14

Dkt. # 33. On March 16, 2017, the Court granted an extension of time in which to affect

15

service in this matter. Plaintiff was given “an additional forty-five days, until May 5,

16

2017, to file proofs of waiver as to all defendants or a second motion for extension of

17

time detailing the efforts made toward effecting personal service.” Dkt. # 12 at 2. Plaintiff

18

failed to timely file proof of service or waiver as to ten defendants, and the claims against

19

them were dismissed on May 11, 2017.

20

Plaintiff has now filed proof that service was in fact achieved on three of the

21

defendants, Whendi Phipps, Clinton Henderson, and Rachel Kron, within the time

22

allowed. The failure to comply with the Court’s order requiring filing by a certain date is

23

nevertheless troubling. Inadvertence in light of the Court’s repeated indications that it will

24

strictly enforce the service deadlines does not constitute good cause. Because this is the

25

first time this particular situation has arisen (at least before the undersigned), the motion

26
ORDER REINSTATING CLAIMS AGAINST
WHENDI PHIPPS, CLINTON HENDERSON,
AND RACHEL KRON

1

to set aside is GRANTED. The claims against Whendi Phipps, Clinton Henderson, and

2

Rachel Kron are hereby reinstated.1 Counsel is advised, however, that future failures to

3

comply with service requirements and orders of the Court will not be excused absent

4

good cause.

5
6

Dated this 12th day of May, 2017.

7

A

8

Robert S. Lasnik
United States District Judge

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

1

Plaintiff also submitted “Stipulations of Dismissal with Prejudice” as to four other
defendants and argues that “the stipulations of dismissal should be recognized as they are with
prejudice per the Confidential Settlement Agreements with each party.” Dkt. # 33 at 2. No
information is provided regarding the dates of the settlement agreements, no arguments are
asserted regarding the effect of the dismissal on May 11, 2007, if any, and the nature of the
requested “recognition” is unclear. The Court takes notice that the stipulated dismissals are
undated and were filed on May 11, 2017.

26
ORDER REINSTATING CLAIMS AGAINST
WHENDI PHIPPS, CLINTON HENDERSON,
AND RACHEL KRON