Opinion
24-CV-02125-JWB-TJJ
10-03-2024
SHEKU KAMARA, Plaintiff, v. EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS, INC., and CREDIT ONE BANK, N.A., Defendants.
NOTICE AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
Teresa J. James U.S. Magistrate Judge
TO THE PLAINTIFF:
Plaintiff filed his Complaint (ECF No. 1) on April 2, 2024. A review of the court docket discloses that while summons was issued for both Defendants on that date, there is no indication that service of summons and the Complaint has been accomplished on Defendant Experian Information Solutions, Inc.
Plaintiff filed a waiver (ECF No. 3) of service by Defendant Credit One Bank, N.A., and filed a Notice of Dismissal of Credit One Bank, N.A. Only (ECF No. 4) on June 13, 2024.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) sets a 90-day time limit for service:
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.”
Based upon the Court's calculation, more than 90 days have passed since Plaintiff filed the Complaint on April 2, 2024, and there is no indication in the docket that Plaintiff has served Defendant Experian Information Solutions, Inc. Accordingly,
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that on or before November 4, 2024, Plaintiffis hereby required to either: (1) file a notice or return showing Defendant Experian Information Solutions, Inc. has been served within 90 days from the date the Complaint was filed; (2) file a motion requesting an extension of time to serve Defendant Experian Information Solutions, Inc. and showing good cause for the failure to timely serve; or (3) show good cause in writing to the Honorable John W. Broomes, United States District Judge why service of summons and the Complaint was not made in this case upon this Defendant within 90 days from the date the Complaint was filed, and why this action should not be dismissed in its entirety, without prejudice, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(m).
IT IS SO ORDERED.