Weisskopf, R. v. Neeman, Yaakov et al
Filing
7
Initial Order for Paid Pro Se: Plaintiff directed to serve complaint. Proof of service due 6/9/2012. Plaintiff's 2 motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is denied. Plaintiff's 6 motion for extension of time to serve defenda nts is granted in part and denied in part. Plaintiff may have an additional 60 days to serve defendant P. E. F. Israel Endowment Fund, Inc. Signed by Magistrate Judge Stephen L. Crocker on 4/9/2012. (Attachments: # 1 USM94 form, # 2 Central Authority information for Israel, # 3 Procedure for Serving a Complaint on a Corporation in a Federal Lawsuit, # 4 Wis. Stats. 801.11, # 5 Amended complaint) (jef),(ps).
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE W ESTERN DISTRICT OF W ISCONSIN
R. DAVID W EISSKOPF,
Plaintiff,
ORDER
v.
11-cv-665-slc
YAAKOV NEEM AN, M OSHE KAHLON,
SIM ONA SHTEINM ETZ, RUTH EISENM ANN,
EDNA BROW NSHTEIN, ORLI OSTERM ANN,
DR. SILVAO GUTKOVSKY and
P.E.F. ISRAEL ENDOW M ENT FUND, INC.,
Defendants.
This is a civil action that plaintiff R. David Weisskopf, proceeding pro se, has filed against
defendants Yaakov Neeman, Moshe Kahlon, Simona Shteinmetz, Ruth Eisenmann, Edna
Brownshtein, Orli Ostermann, Dr. Silvao Gutkovsky and P.E.F. Israel Endowment Fund. On
September 29, 2011, I granted plaintiff leave to proceed without prepayment of fees or costs and I
ordered plaintiff’s complaint to be taken under advisement to determine whether this action is (1)
frivolous or malicious, (2) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or (3) seeks money
damages from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Plaintiff has
now paid the $350 filing fee in this action. Accordingly, the court no longer needs to screen
plaintiff’s complaint and his motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis will be denied as
unnecessary. See dkt. 2.
On December 28, 2011, plaintiff filed an amended complaint with the court. According to
the Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1), a party may amend a pleading once as a matter of course before being
served with a responsive pleading. Defendants have not yet been served in this case. Therefore,
plaintiff’s amended complaint is accepted as the operative pleading in this case. See dkt. 5.
Because plaintiff now has paid the full filing fee in this case, the next step is for plaintiff to
serve his amended complaint on the defendants.
Defendants Neeman, Kahlon, Shteinmetz,
Brownshtein, Gutkovsky, Eisenmann and Ostermann reside in the country of Israel. The United
States and Israel are parties to the Hague Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extra
Judicial Documents in Civil and Commercial Matters. To help plaintiff understand the procedure
for serving a complaint on defendants in the country of Israel, plaintiff is encouraged to visit the
United States Department of State’s website at http://travel.state.gov/law/judicial/judicial_3172.html.
According to the instructions on that website, a service request form, USM-94 (enclosed) should be
completed for each defendant in duplicate and submitted with two sets of the amended complaint
documents to be provided directly to the Israeli Central Authority at The Director of Courts,
Directorate of Courts, 22 Kanfei Nesharin St., Jerusalem 95464, P.O.B. 34142, Israel. Plaintiff is
encouraged to call the Israeli Director of Courts at +972 (2) 655 6847 or visit the Hague Conference
website at http://www.hcch.net/index_en.php?act=authorities.details&aid=260 for more complete
information.
Defendant P.E.F. Israel Endowment Fund, Inc. is a non-profit corporation located in New
York, New York.
To help plaintiff understand the procedure for serving a complaint on a
corporation located within the United States, I am enclosing with this order copies of documents
titled “Procedure for Serving a Complaint on a Corporation in a Federal Lawsuit.” Pursuant to Wis.
Stat. § 39.07, plaintiff should serve defendant P.E.F. Israel Endowment Fund, Inc. according to the
procedure for serving a corporation in a federal lawsuit. Plaintiff should follow the instructions in
accordance with the procedures set out in Option 2 of the memorandum.
On a final note, plaintiff has filed a motion for extension of time to serve defendants. See dkt.
6. Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m), a plaintiff has 120 days after filing a complaint in which to serve the
defendants. Most of the defendants listed on plaintiff’s amended complaint are located outside of
the United States. According to the Fed. R. Civil. P. 4(m), the time limit to serve the complaint on
defendants does not apply to service in a foreign country. Plaintiff’s motion is unnecessary with
respect to the defendants located outside of the United States. Defendant P. E. F. Israel Endowment
2
Fund, Inc., however, is located within the United States. Therefore plaintiff’s motion for extension
of time to serve defendants will be granted in part and denied in part. Plaintiff may have an
additional 60 days to service defendant P. E. F. Israel Endowment Fund, Inc.
ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff R. David Weisskopf’s motion for leave to proceed in forma
pauperis, dkt. 2, is DENIED as unnecessary.
2. Plaintiff’s motion for extension of time to serve his complaint on
defendants, dkt. 6, is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.
Plaintiff may have an additional 60 days to serve defendant P. E. F.
Israel Endowment Fund, Inc. His motion is denied as unnecessary
with respect to defendants Neeman, Kahlon, Shteinmetz,
Brownshtein, Gutkovsky, Eisenmann and Ostermann.
3. The clerk of court is directed to issue the summonses for the
defendants in this case. Plaintiff must then serve the summons and
amended complaint on the defendants promptly. He should file proof
of service of his complaint as soon as he has served each defendant.
(“Proof of service” as provided by the Hague Convention and as
explained in the attachment on service of a corporation.) By June 9,
2012, plaintiff is to file proof of service of his complaint on the
defendants or tell the court why he cannot do so. If he does not file
the proof of service or explain why he could not serve the defendants,
I will order him to explain why his case should not be dismissed for
lack of prosecution.
Entered this 9th day of April, 2012.
BY THE COURT:
/s/
STEPHEN L. CROCKER
Magistrate Judge
3
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?