Opinion
22-cv-12154
11-17-2022
DANIEL LUKE MEIER, Plaintiff, v. ALLSTATE PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant.
ORDER (1) DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO WITHDRAW (ECF No. 9), (2) DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS (ECF No. 10), AND (3) VACATING ORDER TO COMPLETE SERVICE DOCUMENTS (ECF No. 6)
MATTHEW F. LEITMAN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
On August 23, 2022, Plaintiff Daniel Luke Meier filed this action against Defendant Allstate Property and Casualty Insurance Company (“Allstate”) in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas. (See Compl., ECF No. 1.) Meier claims that Allstate deprived him of his civil rights and committed fraud in previous litigation between the parties. (See id.)
On September 8, 2022, the Northern District of Texas transferred Meier's action to this Court (the “Transfer Order”). (See Transfer Order, ECF No. 3.) The Court thereafter (1) granted Meier in forma pauperis status (see Order, ECF No. 5) and (2) ordered Meier to complete certain documents so that the U.S. Marshal could serve Allstate with the Complaint (the “Service Order”). (See Service Order, ECF No. 6.)
Two motions are now pending before the Court. First, Meijer has filed a motion that he calls a “Motion to Withdraw or the Alternative Notice of Appeal.” (Meier Mot., ECF No. 9.) In that motion, Meier contends that the Texas District Court should not have transferred his case to this venue, and he says he has appealed the Transfer Order in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. (See id.) He therefore asks this Court to “to immediately withdraw this complaint due to lack of jurisdiction pending appeals by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.” (Id., PageID.13.) The Court has carefully reviewed Meier's motion and DENIES it. Contrary to Meier's contention, it does not appear that he has an appeal pending with the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. While Meier did attempt to file a Notice of Appeal with the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, that court did not accept filing of that document. (See Meier v. Allstate, N.D. Texas Case No. 22-cv-01872, at Dkt. No. 7.) And a search of the Fifth Circuit's docket by this Court did not reveal any pending appeal (or other proceedings) by Meier. Thus, because Meier does not currently have an appeal of the Transfer Order pending before the Fifth Circuit, there is no basis to grant his motion.
Second, Allstate has filed a motion to dismiss Meier's Complaint. (See Allstate Mot., ECF No. 10.) Allstate says that the Court should dismiss this action because Meier never complied with the Service Order and never made any attempt to serve Allstate with the Complaint. (See id.) Allstate is correct that Meier does not appear to have served Allstate with the Complaint. Nor does it appear that he complied with the requirements of the Service Order. Nonetheless, Allstate received notice of this action, and attorneys have appeared in this action on Allstate's behalf. Under these circumstances, the Court will not dismiss Meier's Complaint based on his failure to serve it on Allstate, and the Court will deem the Complaint served on Allstate. Allstate's motion to dismiss is therefore DENIED. The Court further VACATES the Service Order. Allstate shall answer or otherwise respond to the Complaint by no later than December 19, 2022.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the parties and/or counsel of record on November 17, 2022, by electronic means and/or ordinary mail.
Holly A. Ryan Case Manager