Carter v. Seterus et al, No. 1:2016cv00057 - Document 8 (D. Utah 2016)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM DECISION denying 4 Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Prosecution. The court grants Plaintiff a twenty-day extension from the date of this Order in which toeffect service of process on Defendants. If Plaintiff has not filed proof of service within thirty days of the date of this Order, the court will sua sponte dismiss the case without prejudice. Signed by Judge Dale A. Kimball on 11/09/16. (dla)

Download PDF
Carter v. Seterus et al Doc. 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH NORTHERN DIVISION ROBERT ALLEN CARTER, Plaintiff, MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER vs. Case No. 1:16CV57DAK FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE, et al., Judge Dale A. Kimball Defendants. This matter is before the court on Defendants Paul M. Halliday, Jr. And Halliday, Watkins & Mann, P.C.’s Motion to Dismiss. The motion is fully briefed. The court concludes that a hearing would not significantly aid in its determination of the motion. Accordingly, the court issues the following Memorandum Decision and Order based on the briefs submitted by the parties. The district court may grant an extension of time to serve the complaint after the time prescribed for service. Henderson v. United States, 517 U.S. 654, 661 (1996). Plaintiff argues that he has not served the Complaint because of attempts to resolve the dispute. Plaintiff stated that he intends to now proceed with the case and requested 14 days to complete service. Defendants, however, filed a reply stating that service had not been completed within that time. The court agrees that attempting to resolve the dispute constitutes good cause. However, now that those attempts appear to have been unsuccessful, Plaintiff needs to serve the Complaint. The court sees no benefit in dismissing the case without prejudice and requiring Plaintiff to file a Dockets.Justia.com new lawsuit. Such a result would waste judicial resources and serve little purpose. The court, therefore, will grant Plaintiff a twenty-day extension from the date of this Order in which to effect service of process on Defendants. The court will not extend the time any further. If Plaintiff has not filed proof of service within thirty days of the date of this Order, the court will sua sponte dismiss the case without prejudice. Accordingly, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is denied. DATED this 9th day of November, 2016. BY THE COURT: DALE A. KIMBALL United States District Judge 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.