Opinion
8:22-cv-1829-WFJ-JSS
05-16-2023
NONANI ENTERTAINMENT, LLC, Plaintiff, v. TREMANI BARTLETT P/K/A “POLO G,” and HERBERT RANDALL WRIGHT P/K/A “G HERBO,” Defendants.
ORDER
WILLIAM F. JUNG, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
Plaintiff NoNaNi Entertainment, LLC has failed to show cause why Defendants Tremani Bartlett and Herbert Randall Wright should not be dismissed for failure to secure service. Accordingly, because Defendants Bartlett and Wright are the sole remaining defendants in the instant action, the Court dismisses this case without prejudice.
DISCUSSION
On August 10, 2022, Plaintiff filed its Original Complaint against Live Nation WorldWide, Inc. (“Live Nation”), Tremani Bartlett, and Herbert Randal Wright. Dkt. 1. The Court dismissed Plaintiff's counts against Live Nation without prejudice on December 8, 2022. At that time, Plaintiff had yet to serve Defendants Bartlett and Wright.
On January 6, 2023, Plaintiff filed its Amended Complaint against Live Nation as well as Defendants Bartlett and Wright. Dkt. 26. The Court dismissed Plaintiff's amended counts against Live Nation with prejudice on February 13, 2023. Dkt. 29. On the same day, the Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause as to why it had still not served Defendants Bartlett and Wright. Dkt. 30.
Soon thereafter, Plaintiff filed its Motion for Service by Publication. Dkt. 32. The Court explained that it was not satisfied that Defendants Bartlett and Wright could not with reasonable diligence be served in another manner besides publication and denied Plaintiff's Motion. Dkt. 33. The Court gave Plaintiff an additional 60 days to achieve service, beginning on February 14, 2023. Id.
On April 19, 2023, the Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause within ten days as to why Defendants Bartlett and Wright should not be dismissed for failure to secure service. Dkt. 34. Plaintiff moved for an extension of time. Dkt. 37. The Court awarded Plaintiff an additional 15 days on April 28, 2023. Now, on March 16, 2023, Plaintiff has still failed to show cause as to why Defendants Bartlett and Wright should not be dismissed for failure to secure service.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) provides in pertinent part that:
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.It has now been approximately 279 days since Plaintiff filed its Original Complaint and 130 days since Plaintiff filed its Amended Complaint. Plaintiff has not served Defendants Bartlett and Wright or demonstrated good cause concerning this failure. Plaintiff's action against Defendants Bartlett and Wright is therefore due to be dismissed.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED and ADJUDGED: The instant action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The Clerk is directed to close this case.
DONE AND ORDERED at Tampa, Florida, on May 16, 2023.