MGS MFG Group Inc v. Supermax Corporation de Mexico SA de CV
ORDER signed by Judge J P Stadtmueller on 2/23/10 that plaintiff complete service of process on the defendant by 5/1/10 or the plaintiff's case will be dismissed without prejudice. (cc: all counsel)(nm)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
____________________________________________ M G S MFG GROUP INC., P l a i n t if f , v. S U P E R M A X CORPORATION DE MEXICO SA DE CV, D e fe n d a n t. ____________________________________________ Case No. 09-CV-174
O n February 17, 2010, this court ordered the plaintiff, MGS Mfg Group Inc. ("M G S " ), to, within twenty days of the order, provide the court with good cause for th e failure to timely serve the defendant with a summons and complaint. (Docket # 4 ). MGS did not need twenty days to respond to the court's order, however, as the c o u r t received a declaration from MGS's attorney, Matthew R. Jelenchick ("J e le n c h ic k "), on February 18, 2010, explaining why the plaintiff has not yet served th e defendant. Specifically, Attorney Jelenchick informed the court that MGS has b e e n diligently working with authorities in both the United States and Mexico to try to serve the defendant pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(f). The court appreciates M G S 's efforts and understands that the process of serving a foreign defendant can b e quite time consuming. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure implicitly recognizes tha t fact, excluding "service in a foreign country" from the contours of Fed. R. Civ. P . 4(m), which generally requires that a defendant be served within 120 days of the filin g of the complaint. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m) ("This subdivision (m) does not
a p p ly to service in a foreign country under Rule 4(f) or 4(j)(1).") However, while the 1 2 0 -d a y rule does not apply when serving a party in a foreign country, the plaintiff m u s t still act diligently and promptly in effectuating service, and this court can d is m is s the case without prejudice if service in a foreign country is not pursued in a d ilig e n t fashion. 4B Charles Alan W rig h t and Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and P ro c e d u re § 1137 (3d ed. 2002). Thus far, the plaintiff has been diligent in attempting to serve the defendant. T h e affidavit submitted by Attorney Jelenchick informs the court that on December 4 , 2009, the plaintiff submitted the necessary paperwork with officials in the United S tate s to serve the defendant. (Decl. ¶ 9). Based on a previous attempt to serve th e defendant, Attorney Jelenchick anticipates hearing a response from the proper a u th o ritie s regarding the "results of the current efforts" to serve the defendant by the e n d of February 2010. (Decl. ¶ 7). The plaintiff has also expressed a willingness to e xp lo re alternate avenues to serve the defendant if its current efforts fail. (Decl. ¶ 11). Because the plaintiff has thus far made a good faith effort to serve the d e fe n d a n t in accordance with Rule 4(f), the court finds that the plaintiff has complied w ith the directives of this court's February 17, 2010 order. However, to ensure that th e litigation does not linger any more than necessary, the court sets a deadline of M a y 1, 2010, by which the plaintiff must complete service of process. If the plaintiff d o e s not complete service of process by May 1, 2010, the plaintiff's case will be d is m is s e d without prejudice and without further notice.
A c c o rd in g ly, IT IS ORDERED that plaintiff complete service of process on the defendant b y May 1, 2010, or the plaintiff's case will be dismissed without prejudice. Dated at Milwaukee, W is c o n s in , this 23rd day of February, 2010. BY THE COURT:
J .P . Stadtmueller U .S . District Judge
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?