Opinion
Case No. 05-cv-147-PB.
January 20, 2006
ORDER
Defendant did not waive its right to challenge service because it listed lack of proper service as a defense in its answer and the parties agreed in their proposed case management order that motions to dismiss could be filed as late as December 1, 2005. Plaintiff fails to cite a statute, rule or case to support his argument that service by certified mail was proper in this case. While it might be possible to justify the means of service selected, it is not an appropriate use of judicial resources to attempt to identify and evaluate arguments that counsel has failed to properly develop on his own. Rather than dismiss the complaint, I grant plaintiff an additional 30 days to effect service in a manner authorized by law.
SO ORDERED.