Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_05-cv-00688/USCOURTS-azd-4_05-cv-00688-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 840
Nature of Suit: Trademark
Cause of Action: 15:44 Trademark Infringement

---

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 Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

The Parts Place, Inc.,

Plaintiff,

vs.

Memory Lane Muscle Cars,

Defendant. ___________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV05-688-TUC-JCG

REPORT 

& RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiff's Complaint (Doc. No. 1) was filed on November 17, 2005. On

November 17, 2005, the Court issued a summons for Defendant (Doc. No. 2). This

matter was originally assigned to Magistrate Judge Guerin. Because the parties have

not consented to magistrate jurisdiction, Judge Guerin has prepared a report and

recommendation which is now submitted to a District Court Judge chosen by lot

under the Clerk's direction – the Honorable Frank R. Zapata. The Magistrate Judge

recommends the District Court, after its independent review of the record, enter an

order dismissing the lawsuit without prejudice. 

SUMMARY OF THE CASE:

On March 24, 2006, Judge Guerin issued an Order to Show Cause granting

Plaintiff twenty days in which to show cause why this matter should not be dismissed

for failure to effect service on Defendant. The deadline for Plaintiff to show cause

was April 13, 2006 (Doc. No. 6).

On April 17, 2006, Judge Guerin's chambers received in the mail a letter from

Case 4:05-cv-00688-FRZ Document 9 Filed 04/20/06 Page 1 of 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 Page 2 of 2

Plaintiff's counsel dated April 14, 2006. The letter stated that Plaintiff's counsel had

been unable to conform to ECF filing requirements by April 13, 2006, and that

Plaintiff was therefore unable to file a response to the Court's order. Enclosed with

the letter was a memorandum explaining that service could not be timely made on

Defendant because its President (who was also the sole owner and operator) had

passed away. The memorandum requested a sixty-day extension in order for Plaintiff

to either determine the proper avenue to obtain service on Defendant or to dismiss the

case. The letter stated that the memorandum would be filed with the Court on April

17, 2006. A review of the record, however, indicates that the memorandum was

never filed. In addition, the memorandum which was sent to the Court does not detail

any effort to serve the Defendant or explain the failure to request an extension of time

for service before the expiration of the deadline. Accordingly, Plaintiff has filed to

timely show cause why this case should not be dismissed for failure to serve.

RECOMMENDATION

The Magistrate Judge recommends that the District Court, after its independent

review of the record, enter an order 

DISMISSING WITHOUT PREJUDICE pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636(b), any party may serve and file written objections

within 10 days after being served with a copy of this Report and Recommendation.

If objections are not timely filed, they may be deemed waived. The parties are advised

that any objections filed are to be identified with the following case number: 

No. CV05-688-TUC-FRZ.

DATED this 19th day of April, 2006.

Case 4:05-cv-00688-FRZ Document 9 Filed 04/20/06 Page 2 of 2