Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_19-cv-00335/USCOURTS-azd-4_19-cv-00335-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question: Breach of Contract

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Harvey Lloyd Hayden,

Plaintiff,

v. 

Prestige Horizons, et al.,

Defendants.

No. CV-19-00335-TUC-DCB

ORDER 

On May 6, 2020, the Plaintiff sent a letter to the Court, which the clerk docketed 

as a Notice. (Doc. 13.) The letter explains the difficulties related to serving the 

Defendants. It appears that there is some subterfuge at play, but with the assistance of the 

Arizona Attorney General’s Office, the Plaintiff may be able to serve at least some of the 

entities relevant to the Prestige Horizon operations. The current deadline for effecting 

service is May 18, 2020. It appears to the Court that the letter, docketed as a Notice, 

should have been docketed as a Motion for Extension of Time to Serve Defendants.

The Plaintiff is also in the process of amending the Complaint to name the 

numerous entities that are allegedly responsible for the Prestige Horizon operations. This 

amendment came to the Court’s attention through another letter sent to the Court, which 

the Clerk docketed as a Motion for Leave to Amend. (Doc. 12.) The Court was not able 

to grant leave to amend because the letter was not the proper procedural presentation of 

such a request. The Court notes that it was not at all clear from the first letter related to 

the amendment that the new defendants the Plaintiff was proposing to add were in fact 

Case 4:19-cv-00335-DCB Document 16 Filed 05/12/20 Page 1 of 2
- 2 -

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

related to the Prestige Horizon operations which are the subject of the Plaintiff’s case. 

This only became apparent through the second letter, with the email from the Arizona 

Attorney General being especially helpful. At this time, service on the currently named 

Defendants can be made. Service on any new Defendants will have to wait until the 

amendment, which must be filed in accordance with the directives of the Court’s last 

Order (Doc. 14.)

The Court is sympathetic to the Plaintiff’s situation, but he must begin to comply 

with relevant procedural rules for filing. It is not appropriate to send a letter to the Court, 

requiring the Clerk and this Court to guess at its meaning. In its last Order, the Court 

referred the Plaintiff to this Court’s website: www.azd.uscourts.gov at Rules, General 

Orders & Forms, and there is also information on the website for “Those Proceeding 

Without an Attorney.” Again, the Court refers the Plaintiff to its website and the 

requirement that he comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local 

Rules. Before filing any other document, the Plaintiff shall review Local Rule 7.1 to 

ensure all future filings conform to this Rule, or they may be subject to being stricken by 

the Court.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that the Notice (Doc 13) shall be treated as a Motion for an 

Extension of Time to Serve Defendants, which is GRANTED to: June 18, 2020. Plaintiff 

shall file proofs of service in conformance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(l).

Dated this 12th day of May, 2020.

Case 4:19-cv-00335-DCB Document 16 Filed 05/12/20 Page 2 of 2