DA
v.
ALTAFONTE CORPORATION

S.D. Fla. | 2020-06-04
No. 20-cv-20997
313 F.R.D. 671 District Court, S.D. Florida (2020) Positive Treatment
Cited by 2 cases
Opinion of the Court

THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon a sua sponte review of the record. On March 5, 2020, Plaintiff Jeremy Da filed his initial Complaint, ECF No. , naming Altafonte Corporation and Fernando Luaces as Defendants. Under Rule 4(m) Plaintiff had 90 days to perfect service. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). On March 31, 2020, Plaintiff served Defendant Altafonte Corporation. See Return of Service, ECF No. . On April 7, 2020, Plaintiff filed an unexecuted Return of Service, ECF No. , stating Defendant Fernando Luaces was not served. Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint, ECF No. , on May 12, 2020. To date, however, Plaintiff has not filed a return of service showing Defendant Fernando Luaces has been served and the deadline to serve him has passed. See Kennedy v. Grova, No. 11-61354-Civ, 2012 WL 1368139, at *3 (S.D. Fla. Apr. 19, 2012) (“[T]he 120–day1 period provided by Rule 4(m) is

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Copies to: Counsel of Record

Footnotes
1 “Effective December 1, 2015, Congress amended Fed R. Civ. P. 4(m) to shorten the deadline for service from within 120 days after the complaint is filed to within 90 days after the complaint is filed.” Hart v. Zimmerman Holdings Grp., Inc., 313 F.R.D. 671, 672 n.1 (S.D. Fla. 2016) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Case No. 20-cv-20997-BLOOM/Louis not restarted by the filing of an amended complaint except as to those defendants newly added in the amended complaint.” (alteration added; quoting Bolden v. City of Topeka, Kan., 441 F. 3d 1129, 1148 (10th Cir. 2006); other citations omitted)). Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the case is dismissed with respect to Defendant Fernando Luaces. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, on June 4, 2020.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • Da v. Altafonte Corp., 313 F.R.D. 671 (S.D. Fla. 2020)
    …m) is 1 “Effective December 1, 2015, Congress amended Fed R. Civ. P. 4(m) to shorten the deadline for service from within 120 days after the complaint is filed to within 90 days after the complaint is filed.” Hart v. Zimmerman Holdings Grp., Inc., 313 F.R.D. 671, 672 n.1 (S.D. Fla. 2016) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Case No. 20-cv-20997-BLOOM/Louis not restarted by the filing of an amended complaint except as to those defendants newly added in the amended complaint.” (alteration added;…
  • Williams v. Dillard (S.D. Fla. 2020)
    …the failure” to serve. Jd. Good cause for failure to serve within 90 days exists “only when some outside factor such as reliance on faulty advice, rather than inadvertence or negligence, prevented service.” Hart v. Zimmerman Holdings Grp., Inc., 313 F.R.D. 671, 672 (S.D. Fla. 2016) (quoting Lepone—Dempsey v. Carrol Cty. Comm’rs, 476 F. 3d 1277, 1281 (11th Cir. 2007)). Here, the Plaintiff asks the Court to extend the service deadline for good cause because the Plaintiff believes the Defendants are pur…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw