Seaway Bank and Trust Company v. MVF Properties LLC et al

Filing 20

ORDER signed by Judge J.P. Stadtmueller on 10/11/2017. Within 14 days, Plaintiff to provide evidence of service or otherwise explain why good cause exists to extend the service deadline as to defendant Amanda May Reitz. Within 14 days, Plaintiff to identify the Doe defendants in an amended pleading, dismiss them from this action, or explain why good cause exists to allow the Doe defendants to remain unnamed. (cc: all counsel)(jm)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
SEAWAY BANK AND TRUST
COMPANY,
Plaintiff,
v.
MVF PROPERTIES, LLC, JAMES C.
FAZIO, FAZIO AUTOMOTIVE INC.,
AMANDA MAY REITZ,
JOHN DOES A THROUGH N and
JANE DOES A THROUGH N,

Case No. 17-CV-578-JPS

ORDER

Defendants.
This case, originally filed in Milwaukee County Circuit Court, was
removed to this Court on April 24, 2017. (Docket #1). There remains one
named defendant, Amanda May Reitz (“Reitz”), who has not yet been
served. In cases removed from state court to federal district court, any
defendant who was not served in the state court action must be served in
the federal court action “in the same manner as in cases originally filed in
such district court.” 28 U.S.C.A. § 1448. The rule governing service in
federal court actions, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m), provides:
If a defendant is not served within 90 days after the complaint
is filed, the court—on motion or on its own after notice to the
plaintiff—must dismiss the action without prejudice against
that defendant or order that service be made within a
specified time. But if the plaintiff shows good cause for the
failure, the court must extend the time for service for an
appropriate period.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). The ninety-day deadline for service on Reitz expired
on July 24, 2017. The Court will therefore require that, within fourteen (14)
days of the entry of this Order, the plaintiff must provide evidence of
service or otherwise explain why good cause exists to extend the Rule 4(m)
deadline. Failure to do so will result in dismissal of defendant Reitz without
prejudice and without further notice. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m).
Next, there remain in this action several Jane and John Doe
defendants who have not been identified. Discovery has now been open for
several months, which is more than enough time for the plaintiff to have
learned the identities of those defendants. Therefore, the Court will order
that, within fourteen (14) days of the entry of this Order, the plaintiff must
identify the Doe defendants in an amended pleading, dismiss them from
this action, or explain why good cause exists to allow the Doe defendants
to remain unnamed.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that, within fourteen (14) days of the entry of this
Order, Seaway Bank and Trust Company must provide evidence of service,
or otherwise explain why good cause exists to extend the Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 4(m) deadline for service, as to defendant Amanda May
Reitz; and
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, within fourteen (14) days of the
entry of this Order, Seaway Bank and Trust Company must identify the
Doe defendants in an amended pleading, dismiss them from this action, or
explain why good cause exists to allow the Doe defendants to remain
unnamed.

Page 2 of 3

Dated at Milwaukee, Wisconsin, this 11th day of October, 2017.
BY THE COURT:

J.P. Stadtmueller
U.S. District Judge

Page 3 of 3