Matches in SCALES for { <scales/DocketEntry/ilcd;;4:17-cv-04136_de38> ?p ?o ?g. }
Showing items 1 to 5 of
5
with 100 items per page.
- ilcd;;4:17-cv-04136_de38 RegisterActionDate "2018-01-29" @default.
- ilcd;;4:17-cv-04136_de38 RegisterActionDescriptionText "TEXT ORDER denying 29 Defendant 5F6D9C7 n/k/a Talea Lyn Nelson's Motion to Quash. None of the arguments Defendant Nelson makes persuade the Court that process was insufficient in this case. First, Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m) provides that a court may extend the time for service if the plaintiff shows good cause for the failure to serve within 90 days after a complaint is filed. Here, the Court granted Plaintiff United States of America an extension of time to serve Defendant Nelson to 11/13/2017. The record indicates that Defendant Nelson was served with Summons, the Amended Complaint, and Notice by a U.S. Marshal on 11/3/2017. Therefore, because the Plaintiff served Defendant Nelson by the extended deadline of 11/13/2017, Defendant Nelson was timely served. Second, as the Plaintiff argues, the fact that a field agent in Princeton, Illinois tracked down Nelson's address at some point two years before the foreclosure is not the same as that address being in the hands of the U.S. Attorney's Office for purposes of effectuating service in this case. Nothing in the record indicates that the Plaintiff "was well aware of Defendants [sic] address and whereabouts of Defendant since on or about February 25, 2013." Third, while Defendant Nelson contends that she never received the original complaint, the record suggests otherwise. In any event, Defendant Nelson WAS served with the Amended Complaint within the time allowed to do so and that is sufficient. Fourth, Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2) provides that a party may amend its pleading with the court's leave. On 8/24/2017, this Court granted the Plaintiff leave to file its Amended Complaint. Fifth, while the Defendant contends she did not receive summons but rather only a Request for Waiver of Service, the Marshal's Process Receipt and Return indicates that Defendant Nelson was served with Summons, Complaint, and Notice. The Court may rely upon the Marshal's Process Receipt and Return and does, in fact, rely upon it in this case to find Defendant Nelson was properly served. Finally, because the Court finds that Defendant Nelson was properly and timely served with Summons and the Amended Complaint in this case, her Motion to Quash is DENIED. Defendant Nelson must file an answer to the complaint within 14 days (2/12/2018). Her failure to do so may result in default entered against her. Entered by Magistrate Judge Jonathan E. Hawley on 1/29/2018. (KZ, ilcd) (Entered: 01/29/2018)" @default.
- ilcd;;4:17-cv-04136_de38 AdministrativeID "None" @default.
- ilcd;;4:17-cv-04136_de38 hasJudgeReference SJ001513 @default.
- ilcd;;4:17-cv-04136_de38 hasReferenceToOtherEntry ilcd;;4:17-cv-04136_de33 @default.