Chess v. Romine

W.D. Oklahoma

Chess v. Romine

DecidedJuly 2, 2019

Docket5:18-cv-01093

StatusUnknown

This text of Chess v. Romine (Chess v. Romine) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. Oklahoma primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Chess v. Romine, (W.D. Okla. 2019).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA

STEPHEN CHESS, LOIS CHESS, ) BRUCE CALLANDER, JEFF ) DRAWDY and SUSAN DRAWDY, ) ) Plaintiffs/Counter-Defendants, ) ) -vs- ) Case No. CIV-18-1093-F ) RICHARD E. ROMINE, an ) individual; STRIKER ENTITIES, ) LLC, a Wyoming limited liability ) company; and DOES 1-10, inclusive, ) ) Defendants/Counter-Claimants, ) ) THE STRIKER GROUP, LLC, ) STRIKER DEVELOPMENT, LLC, ) STRIKER 2004, LLC, STRIKER ) 2005, LLC, and STRIKER 2008, ) LLC, ) ) Intervening Defendants/ ) Counter-Claimants. )

ORDER On June 26, 2019, the court entered an order (doc. no. 71) directing plaintiffs to show cause in writing by noon on July 1, 2019, why defendants, Does 1-10, should not be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Rule 4(m), Fed. R. Civ. P. Plaintiffs have not responded to the court’s order. The court thus concludes that plaintiffs have failed to show good cause for the court to grant a mandatory extension of time to effect service of process. See, Espinoza v. U.S., 52 F.3d 838, 840-841 (10th Cir. 1995). Although the court may extend the time for a plaintiff to serve a defendant even without a showing of good cause, id. at 841, the court is not inclined to grant plaintiffs a permissive extension of time to effect service of process. Plaintiffs are represented by counsel in this matter and they have not provided any reason for the court to exercise its discretion to permit them to have additional time to identify defendants, Does-1-10, and to effect service of process on them. Further, this matter is currently set for trial in August and dispositive motions have been fully briefed by the parties and are now pending before the court. Accordingly, plaintiffs’ action against defendants, Does 1-10, is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE pursuant to Rule 4(m), Fed. R. Civ. P. IT IS SO ORDERED this 2" day of July, 2019.

AL put STEPHEN P. FRIOT UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

18-1093p012.docx

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA

STEPHEN CHESS, LOIS CHESS, ) BRUCE CALLANDER, JEFF ) DRAWDY and SUSAN DRAWDY, ) ) Plaintiffs/Counter-Defendants, ) ) -vs- ) Case No. CIV-18-1093-F ) RICHARD E. ROMINE, an ) individual; STRIKER ENTITIES, ) LLC, a Wyoming limited liability ) company; and DOES 1-10, inclusive, ) ) Defendants/Counter-Claimants, ) ) THE STRIKER GROUP, LLC, ) STRIKER DEVELOPMENT, LLC, ) STRIKER 2004, LLC, STRIKER ) 2005, LLC, and STRIKER 2008, ) LLC, ) ) Intervening Defendants/ ) Counter-Claimants. )

ORDER On June 26, 2019, the court entered an order (doc. no. 71) directing plaintiffs to show cause in writing by noon on July 1, 2019, why defendants, Does 1-10, should not be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Rule 4(m), Fed. R. Civ. P. Plaintiffs have not responded to the court’s order. The court thus concludes that plaintiffs have failed to show good cause for the court to grant a mandatory extension of time to effect service of process. See, Espinoza v. U.S., 52 F.3d 838, 840-841 (10th Cir. 1995). Although the court may extend the time for a plaintiff to serve a defendant even without a showing of good cause, id. at 841, the court is not inclined to grant plaintiffs a permissive extension of time to effect service of process. Plaintiffs are represented by counsel in this matter and they have not provided any reason for the court to exercise its discretion to permit them to have additional time to identify defendants, Does-1-10, and to effect service of process on them. Further, this matter is currently set for trial in August and dispositive motions have been fully briefed by the parties and are now pending before the court. Accordingly, plaintiffs’ action against defendants, Does 1-10, is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE pursuant to Rule 4(m), Fed. R. Civ. P. IT IS SO ORDERED this 2" day of July, 2019.

AL put STEPHEN P. FRIOT UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

18-1093p012.docx

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Chess v. Romine, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chess-v-romine-okwd-2019.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack