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)

Download PDF
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

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?