Opinion
22-cv-10068
05-04-2022
Ariel Moore, Plaintiff, v. City of Detroit, Michigan, A Municipal Corporation, et al., Defendants.
Kimberly G. Altman, Mag. Judge.
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR ALTERNATE SERVICE AS MOOT [9] AND REQUIRING RESPONSE BY DEFENDANT GARRISON AND PLAINTIFF TO CLARIFY CONTACT INFORMATION [13, 15]
JUDITH E. LEVY, United States District Judge.
Before the Court is Plaintiff Ariel Moore's motion for alternate service for Defendant Michael Garrison. (ECF No. 9.) Plaintiff requested alternate service of process because Defendant Garrison's last known home address was 8237 Donna Street, Westland, MI 48185. (Id. at PageID.155.) Plaintiff alleged that a process server had made multiple attempts to personally serve Defendant Garrison at this address, but that such attempts were unsuccessful. (Id.)
On April 11, 2022, Defendant Garrison filed an answer to the complaint. (ECF No. 13.) In this answer, Defendant Garrison indicates that the summons for the complaint was delivered to his household on March 25, 2022. (Id. at PageID.168.) Defendant Garrison did not contest proper service was effectuated. Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion for alternate service for Defendant Garrison is denied as moot.
However, Eastern District of Michigan Local Rule 11.2 requires every party not represented by an attorney to include his or her “contact information consisting of his or her address, e-mail address, and telephone number on the first paper that person files in a case.” E.D. Mich. LR 11.2. Such notice is to be filed with the Clerk and served on all parties. Defendant Gary Steele's answer is the first paper filed by Defendant Steele in this case yet does not include any of the contact information as enumerated in Local Rule 11.2. (See ECF No. 15.) Additionally, Defendant Garrison's answer is the first paper filed by Defendant Garrison in this case, but it does not include his address, as required by Local Rule 11.2. (See ECF No. 13.) Furthermore, the information contained on the CM/ECF docket for Defendant Garrison's address does not match the address that was included by Plaintiff in her motion for alternate service (see ECF Nos. 9-10).
For the reasons set forth above, the Court will require Defendant Garrison to submit an address at which he can be contacted for the purposes of this case, as required by Local Rule 11.2. Additionally, because the Court has no contact information for Defendant Steele, Plaintiff is to submit the address at which Defendant Steele was served. Defendant Garrison and Plaintiff are to submit the required contact information by May 11, 2022.
IT IS SO ORDERED.