Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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

Conti v. Riverside Medical Center

United States District Court, C.D. Illinois, Urbana Division

June 19, 2019

JULIE A. CONTI, Plaintiff,
v.
RIVERSIDE MEDICAL CENTER, et al., Defendants.

          ORDER

          COLIN S. BRUCE U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE

         Judge Long entered a Report & Recommendation (#5) on May 28, 2019. Plaintiff filed an Objection (#6) on June 11, 2019. For the following reasons, the court accepts the Report & Recommendation.

         BACKGROUND

         Plaintiff filed her Complaint (#1) on October 29, 2018. On November 14, 2018, Plaintiff's counsel filed a Certificate of Service (#2) verifying that he mailed a Notice of Lawsuit and Request to Waive Service of Summons to each named Defendant. Defendants did not return the waivers of service.

         On May 8, 2019, Magistrate Judge Eric I. Long entered an Order to Show Cause (#4). The Order stated:

On October 29, 2018, Plaintiff filed a Complaint (#1) against Defendants. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m), a plaintiff has 90 days to serve a complaint upon all defendant[s]. There is no showing that, to date, Plaintiff has served the defendant in this matter. Therefore, the Court orders Plaintiff to show cause as to why this matter should not be dismissed for failing to serve the summons pursuant to Rule 4(m). Plaintiff has 14 days from the entry of this order to comply.

         After Plaintiff did not respond to the Order to Show Cause within 14 days, Judge Long entered a Report & Recommendation (#5) on May 28, 2019. Judge Long recommended that the case be dismissed because Plaintiff had not responded to the Order to Show Cause, Defendants did not return the waivers of service, and there was no showing that Plaintiff had served Defendants.

         On June 11, 2019, Plaintiff filed an Objection (#6) to the Report & Recommendation. Plaintiff argues that Judge Long did not consider all of the relevant facts and options.

         Plaintiff includes two sentences under the heading “Additional Relevant Facts.” First, she states that she filed a charge with the EEOC and received a notice of right to sue on July 30, 2018, and she filed her suit on the 90-day deadline, October 29, 2018. Second, she states: “The 120-day deadline for service under Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(m) was February 26, 2019.” Plaintiff's argument section cites case law concerning a court's discretion to extend the time for service, and it states:

Plaintiff requests the Court exercise its discretion to extend the time for service because Defendants have likely already received actual notice of the suit, Defendant's [sic] will not likely suffer any prejudice as [a] result of an extension of time and-because the statute of limitations on plaintiff's claims have passed and dismissal for failure to timely serve would effectively be a dismissal with prejudice.

         Plaintiff does not claim to have ever attempted service, nor does Plaintiff offer any reason service has not been attempted or perfected.

         ANALYSIS

         The court first notes that Plaintiff is incorrect as to the deadline for service of process under the applicable version of Federal ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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