Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Farano v. Assured Solutions International

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY


October 29, 2007

THOMAS FARANO, PLAINTIFF,
v.
ASSURED SOLUTIONS INTERNATIONAL, LLC, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Mary L. Cooper United States District Judge

MEMORANDUM OPINION

THE PLAINTIFF having filed a complaint on July 26, 2006, and an amended complaint on December 5, 2006 (dkt. entry nos. 1 & 6);*fn1 and the plaintiff submitting to the Court a letter - which is dated June 25, 2007, and was received on June 29, 2007 - "advis[ing] that we have been attempting to serve the Defendants with process but, unfortunately, have not had success", and "request[ing] that [the Court] provide us with additional time so that we may continue our efforts" (Pl. Letter); and the Court noting that the letter was not electronically filed; and

THE PLAINTIFF HAVING FAILED to serve the defendants within 120 days after filing the amended complaint, see Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(m); and it appearing that this action has been pending for a year; and the Court thus advising the plaintiff of the intention to dismiss the complaint unless the plaintiff complied with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure ("Rule") 4(m) by August 24, 2007 ("July Order") (dkt. entry no. 7, 7-24-07 Order), see Sykes v. Blockbuster Video, 205 Fed.Appx. 961, 963-64 (3d Cir. 2006); and the Court thus notifying the plaintiff of the intention to dismiss the complaint, see Liu v. Oriental Buffet, 134 Fed.Appx. 544, 546 (3d Cir. 2005); and the Court advising the plaintiff that no further enlargements of time would be granted to comply with Rule 4(m), even with the consent of all parties, barring extraordinary circumstances (7-24-07 Order); and

IT APPEARING that the deadline to comply with the July Order elapsed two months ago; and it appearing that the plaintiff has failed to either file an electronic response or otherwise comply with the July Order; and the Court thus intending to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Rule 4(m); and for good cause appearing, the Court will issue an appropriate order and judgment.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.