Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_15-cv-01473/USCOURTS-azd-2_15-cv-01473-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question: Fair Labor Standards

---

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 

D. Buddy Wayne, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Sullivan Investments Incorporated, et al., 

Defendants.

No. CV-15-01473-PHX-DGC

ORDER 

 Defendants Sullivan Investments Corporation, Robert Sullivan, and Christopher 

Sullivan have filed a motion to strike Plaintiff’s application for default. Doc. 11. The 

Court will grant the motion. 

 Plaintiff filed a pro se complaint on July 31, 2015. Doc. 1. Plaintiff allegedly 

served defendants on August 26, 2015, but the proof of service only indicates that it was 

served at the “place of business” without indicating who received the summons. Doc. 7. 

On September 25, 2015, Plaintiff filed an application for default alleging that Defendants 

had not filed a timely response. Doc. 8. On September 29, 2015, Defendants filed an 

answer (Doc. 9) and the motion to strike Plaintiff’s application for default (Doc. 11). 

Defendants’ motion alleges that they were not properly served as required by Rule 4 

because the summons did not issue until August 28, 2015, was served on a receptionist, 

and was never served on Robert and Christopher Sullivan. Doc. 11 at 2. Plaintiff has not 

opposed the motion to strike. 

Case 2:15-cv-01473-DGC Document 13 Filed 11/23/15 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 

The Court will grant Defendants’ motion. The proof of service states that the 

summons was served on August 26. Doc. 7. In reality, the Court issued the summons on 

August 28, making service on August 26 impossible. The proof of service also fails to 

identify who accepted service. Id. Furthermore, Robert and Christopher Sullivan were 

not served. 

 Despite not being properly served, Defendants have voluntarily appeared and filed 

an answer. As a result, Plaintiff need not serve them. The Court has set a Rule 16 case 

management conference for December 16, 2015 (Doc. 12), and the case will proceed. 

The Court reminds Plaintiff that he must comply with all federal and local rules. The 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Court’s local rules of civil procedure are 

available on the Court’s website at www.azd.uscourts.gov. A copy of the Court’s local 

rules may also be obtained from the Clerk’s Office. 

IT IS ORDERED that Defendants’ motion to strike Plaintiff’s application for 

default (Doc. 11) is granted. 

 Dated this 23rd day of November, 2015. 

Case 2:15-cv-01473-DGC Document 13 Filed 11/23/15 Page 2 of 2